- (1.) The significant questions of law which arise for our determination in this case are, as to what is the scope of power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with an administrative order of the Government transferring an employee from one place to another What are the grounds on which interference with such an order is permissible
(2.) Before adverting to the facts of the case, to which a detailed reference shall be made hereinafter, let us first clear the deck as to the scope of power of interfernce of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Government transferring an employee from one place to another. The Apex Court has considered this matter recently in Union of India and others v. Shri H.N. Kirtania, 1989 3 JT 131, wherein it has been observed :- "Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory Rules or on ground of mala fides."
(3.) The Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of interference in an administrative order in Sardar Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, 1964 AIR(SC) 72, Ayyangar, J. speaking for the majority observed as follows :- "Pausing here, we might summarize the position by stating that the Court is not an appellate forum where the correctness of an order of Government could be canvassed and, indeed, it has no jurisdiction to substitute its own view as to the necessity or desirability of initiating disciplinary proceedings for the entirely of the power, jurisdiction and discretion in that regard is vested by law in the Government. The only question which could be considered by the Court is whether the authority vested with the power has paid attention to or taken into account circumstances, events or matters wholly extraneous to the purpose for which the power was vested, or whether the proceedings have been initiated mala fide for satisfying a private or personal grudge of the authority against the officer. If the act is in excess of the power granted or is an abuse or misuse of power, the matter is capable of interference and rectification by the Court. In such an event the fact that the authority concerned denies the charge of mala fides, or asserts the absence of oblique motives or of its having taken into consideration improper or irrelevant matter does not preclude the Court from enquiring into the truth of the allegations made against the authority and affording appropriate reliefs to the party aggrieved by such illegality or abuse of power in the event of the allegations being made out." Next his Lordship said :- "The Constitution enshrined and guarantees the rule of law and Article 226 is designed to ensure that each and every authority in the State, including the Government acts bonafide and within the limits of its power and we consider that when a Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to afford justice to the individual......";