21 June 2019
if the transfer of a goverment employee done only for accommodate a person who is choice of local MLA his transfer done on the recommendation of local MLA and without any administrative exigency or public interest the employer has issue the transfer order as recommended by MLA without any opinion on recommendation or administrative exigency or public interest about the transfer after a week, that employee again transferred from his new posting to another new posting, because the same MLA wants accommodate another person of his choice also on that new posting. and employer has issue the new transfer order as recommended by MLA without any opinion or objaction fact is crystel clear on the notesheet of office of employer and by recommendation letter of MLA, but in the light of apex court citation given in SL ABBAS case, the single bench of highcourt denied to interfare in matter, appeal has been in division bench but no hope also in there what is the further remady any citation of apex court about this type of matter
21 June 2019
If the transfer is manifestly against any well established norms of transfer the officer can approach the court and get a favourable order nullifying the transfer.
Some states like Kerala have well documented and established transfer norms. The only thing the State can argue is administrative exigency in their favour. If the State could establish that the violation of transfer norms is due to unavoidable administrative exigency the court will not interfere in the transfer.
Such transfer issues are taken up in the administrative tribunals. If the order of the tribunal goes against the employee he has still opportunity to file an OP in the high court against the tribunal decision provided there is substance in his argument.
If you read the judgement in the TSR Subramanian v Union of India you can find that the discretion in transfer is a fast fading thing in governance.
22 June 2019
Transfer/posting is an internal functioning of an organisation, which is generally not interfered by Courts, till gross injustice is caused to the employee. Since you have already engaged an able, competent and intelligent lawyer to contest/ proceed before DB follow his/her guidance. If you have lost faith in your lawyer change him/her immediately. If you want a second opinion consult a local prudent lawyer for better appreciation of facts/records and guidance. However, if you are located in Delhi and feel so, may contact me (on appointment) with records at: Chamber No 647, Lawyer's Chamber Block, Dwarka Courts Complex, New Delhi-110075 Cell # +91-98911-52939 email: email@example.com, website: vakil-saab.com
22 June 2019
in TSR Subramanim case the apex court decided
. We, therefore, direct all the State Governments and Union Territories to issue directions like Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, in their respective States and Union Territories which will be carried out within three months from today.
The rules stated that
. Rule 3(3) of the above-mentioned Rules reads as follows :-
3(3) (i) No member of the Service shall, in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his own best judgment to be true and correct except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior.
(ii) The direction of the official superior shall ordinarily be in writing. Where the issue of oral direction becomes unavoidable, the official superior shall confirm it in writing immediately thereafter.
(iii) A member of the Service who has received oral direction from his official superior shall seek confirmation of the same in writing, as early as possible and in such case, it shall be the duty of the official superior to confirm the direction in writing.
Explanation I– A member of the Service who habitually fails to perform a task assigned to him within the time set for the purpose and with the quality of performance expected of him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty within the meaning of the sub-rule (1);
Explanation II – Nothing in clause (i) of sub-rule (3) shall be construed as empowering a Government servant to evade his responsibilities by seeking instructions from or approval of, a superior officer or authority when such instructions are not necessary under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities.”
Such paralell rules are already in conduct rules of all services.
In this case there are neither directions nor oral. It is clear recommnedation in writing and the concerned authority decided to accept the same. One MLA has recommended (not directed) in writing