TEAM LEADER ARMY TEAM B D L Vs. MAJOR C V V REDDY
LAWS(APH)-1992-10-27
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 23,1992

TEAM LEADER, ARMY TEAM, BHARAT DYNAMICS LIMITED. HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
MAJOR C.V.V.REDDY Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MAJOR THAKUR SINGH KAUNDAL VS. MILITARY SECRETARY [LAWS(APH)-1995-7-50] [FOLLOWED ON]


JUDGEMENT

A.Lakshmana Rao, J. - (1.)This writ appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Judge dated April 15,1992 in writ petition No.3131 of 1992 which was filed by the respondent herein for the issue of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the appellants herein, in posting him to 43 EME Battalion vide Army Headquarter's Signal (Telegram) 389339/MS EME dated December 20,1991 as illegal, unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition declaring that the transfer of the respondent herein to 43 EME Battalion by the Army Headquarter's Signal, dated December 20,1991 was illegal, invalid and inoperative. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal.
(2.)For the appreciation of the points that arise for consideration in this writ appeal, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts. After completing his education at Sainik School, Korukonda, the respondent herein, joined the National Defence Academy at Pune in August, 1976. He was commissioned in the Army on June 7,1980 in the corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. During the period from 1981 to 1984 he completed his degree in engineering course at College of Military Engineering, Pune and Military College of Electronics and Mechanical Engineering, Secunderabad. In the year 1985 he joined Master in Engineering (M.E.,) Course in Aerospace at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and secured the post-graduate degree. He was selected and posted on July 1,1991 to Army Team on the Project of Prithvi and Trishul, which is located at Bharat Dynamics Limited, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad. The Army Team consisted of sevenof ficers including the Team Leader, Lieutenant Colonel P. Kumar, the first appellant herein. Since permanent establishment for the Army Team had not yet been sanctioned by the Government of India, the officers were posted to the local units in and around Hyderabad to enable them to report for work at Bharat Dynamics Limited. The respondent herein was posted to 1 EME Centre, Secunderabad, his corps unit, while the first appellant herein was posted to a unit under Artillery Brigade as he belongs to artillery. The team was entrusted with the work of preparing "users' documentation".
(3.)Commander, 54 Artillery Brigade, 2nd appellantherein has been entrusted with the overall responsibility for the co-ordination of development of Prithvi Missile System and conduct of training as well as supervision of preparation of documentation at the Bharat Dynamics Limited. He had addressed a letter dated October 29,1991 to the Project Manager (Prithvi), Additional Director General (A), New Delhi, the 4th appellant herein, stating that the performance of the respondent herein as a member of the team and his suitability for the assignment had been assessed over the past three months and that his behaviour on a number of occasions had been highly irresponsible and immature. It was further stated that the officer had not been able either to fit into the team or contribute anything of significance despite guidance, warnings and persistent counselling. It was mentioned that the officer was not mentally and physically prepared to take on the assignment which involved sustained work. Finding that his overall performance was indicative of a negative approach, the 2nd appellant informed the 4th appellant that the respondent was being directed to report to his parent unit, 1-EME Centre, Secunderabad. The 4th appellant was therefore requested to arrange nomination of a suitable person in place of the respondent as a member of the Team. On September 25,1991, the Team Leader, the 1st appellant herein, called for explanation from the respondent on the lapses mentioned therein relating to his failure to attend Prithvi Cadre on September 20,1991 and absence from the quarter from 20th September to 25th September 1991, etc. The respondent submitted his explanation dated September 26,1991, stating that he had no valid excuse as regards any of the lapses cited in the letter dated September 25,1991. He tendered his apology for having taken a "totally unwarranted egoistic stand".
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.