Udai Vir Singh Rathi v. Union of India & Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

JUNE 3, 2011 dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 2nd June, 2011 Date of decision: 3rd June, 2011 + W.P.(C) No.2435/2011 Udai Vir Singh Rathi (ACP) … Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate. Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI. Mr. Nirbhay Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Delhi Police CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ The present writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legal pregnability of the order dated 11.3.2011 in OA No.2785/2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short "the tribunal") whereby the tribunal has declined to interfere with the order of transfer dated 18.8.2010 transferring the petitioner – applicant from Delhi to Andaman and Nicobar Islands on the basis of a request made by the Chief Secretary of the said Administration. The petitioner, as is manifest, had assailed the order of transfer initially in OA No.2451/2010 before the tribunal which was disposed of on 30.7.2010 requiring him to make a representation. The representation was rejected vide order dated 18.8.2010 and the order of transfer was reiterated. It was contended before the tribunal that the petitioner has an impeccable record and many laurels to his credit and had functioned extremely well in many sensitive posts in Delhi Police and, therefore, there was no justification to transfer him to Andaman & Nicobar Islands. It was also urged that the vacancies of ACP levels exist at both Delhi and its outlying segments and, hence, he should not have been transferred. It was also urged that he is going to retire on 31.12.2013 and, therefore, there was no warrant to send him to the said place. Apart from that various other personal difficulties were highlighted. 2. The tribunal placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., Bangalore v. Mysore Paper Mills Officer Association, Bhadravati and another, 1999 6 SLR 77, B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 and Airport Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey, JT 2009 (10) SC 472, Rajendra Singh v. State of UP and others, 2010 1 SLR 632 and Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2007 STPL (LE) 39042 SC came to hold as follows: "27. Further, a close and careful analysis of the order dated 18.8.2010, I find the Respondents have considered the grounds taken by the Applicant in his representation appropriately to arrive at the conclusion of rejecting the same. Respondents have to balance the public interest and administrative exigencies on the one hand and the personal and family problems the Applicant has posed due to his transfer on the other hand. They find that institutional need is of paramount importance over the family compulsions of the Applicant. I am in full agreement with the views of the Respondents. The order dated 18.8.2010 is a speaking and reasoned one and by no stretch of imagination the same can be termed as non- application of mind. 28. Applicant has taken the route of family problems to buttress his claim to stay at Delhi. This is unfortunate on the part of the Applicant to bring in his family problem like (i) daughter"s estranged married life along with associated litigations; and (ii) brother"s criminal appeal in a murder case before the Hon"ble Supreme Court. Though, learned counsel for the Applicant dwelt on these two family issues of the Applicant in the most part of his arguments and even voluminous documents on both issues have been annexed to the OA to impress that Ap