ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions involving inter-related issues, where the petitioner, an employee of the respondent-North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited [hereinafter also referred to as 'NEEPCO/'the Corporation'], has questioned the respective orders of his transfer and suspension as also the enquiry proceedings, have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

(2.) Though elaborate pleadings have been taken by the parties where, on one hand, the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders of transfer and disciplinary proceedings as being wholly illegal, unauthorized and even mala fide and on the other hand, the respondents have asserted on the validity of their actions but, for the reasons indicated hereinafter later, it does not appear necessary to dilate on all the factual aspects projected by the parties; and only a brief reference to the relevant background aspects would suffice. The relevant background aspects

(3.) The petitioner, holding the post of Manager (HR), was transferred and posted in the Corporate Vigilance Department of the respondent Corporation under the Chief Vigilance Officer, Shillong [ CVO?] by an order dated 27.07.2015. However, by the impugned order dated 23.05.2016 [Annexure-5 in WP (C) No.199 of 2016], he was ordered to be transferred to Doyang Hydro Electric Project [ DHEP?] in the State of Nagaland, purportedly "in the interest of works of the corporation and on administrative expediency"; and by the same order, in place of the petitioner, another incumbent working as Senior Manager (HR), DHEP was ordered to be posted in the Corporate Vigilance Department. The CVO, however, took exception against the aforesaid transfer order dated 23.05.2016 qua the petitioner, particularly with reference to the Circular dated 28.03.2006 of the Central Vigilance Commission, which provides, inter alia, that the personnel in Vigilance Units are to be posted in consultation with the CVOs for an initial tenure of three years; and any premature reversion before the expiry of tenure has to be with the concurrence of CVOs. Hence, by an order dated 24.05.2016 [Annexure-6 in WP (C) No.199 of 2016], the CVO practically negated the aforesaid transfer order dated 23.05.2016 qua the petitioner, while directing that the petitioner shall continue to discharge his duties with the Corporate Vigilance Department?. The CVO?s said order dated 24.05.2016 with its endorsements is reproduced as under:- "Office of the Chief Vigilance officer