PORESH KUMAR NATH Vs. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is serving as a Supervisor (Design) in the establishment of the respondent North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) and is aggrieved with the impugned transfer order dtd. 26/11/2021 which had been issued by the respondent No.4. The reasons for assailing the transfer order are that the same had been made in a colourable and malafide exercise of power by the respondents in view of the fact that the writ petitioner is a trade union leader and under the collective banner of the three Trade Unions in NEEPCO had filed a writ petition being No. WP(C). 367 of 2021 on 18/11/2021, wherein the vires of Rule 8 (iii) of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 have been challenged. The writ petitioner has alleged that his transfer is a form of punishment for his involvement in trade union activities. Personal allegations of malafide have also been levelled against the respondent No.5 who is made a party respondent by name.

(2.) Mr. H.L.Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. A.Kharshiing, learned counsel submits that the transfer order suffers from grave illegalities, firstly, in the speed and haste with which the petitioner was transferred which was at the behest of the respondent No.5, to Kurung Project Arunachal Pradesh from Mawsynram Project, Meghalaya without allowing him to complete his assignment and that the same is a clear violation of the stated Transfer Policy of NEEPCO. Learned Senior counsel also asserts that the impugned transfer was made at the behest and on the recommendation of the respondent No.5 who is the petitioner's controlling officer and also the competent recommending authority for transfer of subordinate technical staff, and as such the transfer order was issued by the respondent No.4 (H.R.Department). The learned Senior counsel in his allegations of malafide against the respondent No.5 has submitted that the said respondent was inimical to the petitioner and had warned him with the threat of transfer to a far-flung area for his union activities. In this context, he has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-5 of the writ petition which is a show cause notice dtd. 11/10/2021 issued by the respondent No.5, wherein the petitioner was warned and was called upon to explain as to why necessary action was not to be initiated against him. The learned Senior counsel has pointed out that in this letter itself, reference is made to a verbal warning by the respondent No.5, which was made on 9/8/2021. Learned Senior counsel further submits immediately after the explanation had been given, the petitioner was sent to Wah Umiam HeP Stage III (85 MW) Mawsynram, Meghalaya vide letter dtd. 15/11/2021 issued by the respondent No.3, for collection of data and he was to submit the same on or before 1/12/2021, even though such assignment is hardly connected with the petitioner's normal official duty which is drawing of projects as Supervisor (Design). Thereafter, learned Senior counsel submits when the vires of Rule 8 (iii) of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (NEEPCO) Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1980 came to be challenged by way of WP(C). No. 367 of 2021 on 18/11/2021 by the three Trade Unions of NEEPCO, at the behest of respondent No.5, the impugned transfer order dtd. 26/11/2021 was passed hastily, transferring the petitioner from Guwahati to Kurung Dam, Arunachal Pradesh. The transfer, the learned Senior counsel asserts was made with the view to disable the petitioner from discharging his responsibilities as a Trade Union leader and as such the same was not done in the ordinary course of business but solely with an ulterior motive to punish the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel submits that the transfer of the petitioner is also in violation of Rule 6.2 of the Transfer Policy of NEEPCO which stipulates that an employee will be considered for transfer from Location Category-I to Location Category-II or vice versa or within the same category after completion of the tenure of 4(four) years in one location. He submits that though a representation against the transfer has been filed as provided under Rule 17, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court due to the nature of the case where he cannot expect justice from the respondents. In this regard the learned Senior counsel has referred to a judgment and order dtd. 27/8/2019 passed by this Court in WP(C). No. 258 of 2018 and WP(C). No. 319 of 2018 (Shri. Devapriya Choudhury v. Union of India and Shri. Subir Sircar v. NEEPCO and Ors.) especially para 18 wherein it has been held that though the Transfer Policy does not have the force of statutory rules but as the guidelines had been framed by the NEEPCO itself, an obligation was cast upon them to follow these norms and to justify any deviation therefrom.