- (1.) 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, 1986 AIR(SC) 1955, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 AIR(SC) 532, Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, 1993 AIR(SC) 2444 and Airport Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey, 2009 10 JT 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 nonapplication 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) daughters estranged married life along with associated litigations; and (ii) brothers criminal appeal in a murder case before the Honble 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 Applicants presence at Delhi is absolutely necessity, I take note of para 10 of the impugned order and find that the Respondents have properly addressed those issues and rejected the Applicants request. It is noted that every Government employee will have some family / domestic / personal problems to cling on to one place but the administrative exigencies and public interest are more important for the executives to decide on the transfer. In the present case, in the order passed in OA No.2451/2010 Applicants family problems were posed before the Respondents to consider in this case. They did consider and rejected the Applicants such plea. I do not find any infirmity in the said decision conveyed to him vide order dated 18.8.2010."
(3.) Being of this view, the tribunal dismissed the original application. It is worth nothing this Court on 26.5.2011 had passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the respondent shall obtain instructions whether the petitioner can be accommodated at Delhi or some other place. Call on 2 nd June, 2011." ;