MANMEET SINGH GOINDI DEPUTY DIRECTOR SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties & perused the pleadings.

(2.) Challenge has been made to transfer order dated 24.5.2006 basically on the grounds of mala fides. It is stated by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that applicant made numerous representations addressed to Director General, Sports Authority of India, Hon'ble Union Minister for Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of India & others, wherein specific instances of alleged acts of commissions & omissions of said Respondent No. 3, i.e., Secretary, Sports Authority of India, were pointed out. When such was the position, applicant was transferred at the instance of Respondent No. 3 vide impugned transfer order dated 24.5.2006. Prior to said date, applicant had some medical problem, for which a "Bronchoscope" was conducted for removal of certain foreign body, which is evident from medical certificate placed at pages 39-40 of OA. He was advised rest for one week, which was extended by fresh medial advice dated 30.5.2006 & 09.6.2006. Applicant was also examined by doctor of Sports Authority of India on 19.4.2006 for "piles", for which he had been operated on 05.9.2006 at Dr. RML Hospital. He made representations dated 28.7.2006 & 30.5.2006 (pages 104-105 & 120-121 of paper-book) seeking cancellation of aforesaid transfer order on medical as well as grounds of malafide. Applicant had also a problem of acute back pain and slip disk, which was technically termed as 'PIVD', & evident from medical certificate dated 21.8.2006 issued by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (page 48). Applicant's contention has been that at no point of time aforesaid certificates made available to them were questioned by constituting any medical Board seeking its second opinion. Medical board was constituted for the first time on 4.12.2006 by respondent to examine as to whether the applicant is fit or not. At this stage, Mr. Anil Grover, learned Counsel for respondents, drew my attention to the fact that the applicant had undertaken to report for duty on being medically fit vide communication dated 28.7.2006, addressed to Director General, Sports Authority of India (page 105 of paper book para-8). Learned Counsel for applicant pointed out that in spite of sickness, no leave has been granted till date and no payment on account of salary, etc. has been made to the applicant. The respondents insisted that in spite of his illness, he should travel to Bangalore to claim his salary.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant reiterated that as the applicant was sick, the respondent's insistence on his joining at Bangalore to claim his salary is inhumane. Be that as it may, the facts remain that applicant had given undertaking on 28.7.2006 to report at new place of posting i.e. Bangalore, after being declared medically fit for which purpose he had been examined by the medical board constituted for the first time on 4.12.2006. On receipt of report of said medical board, the respondents should take necessary action, and, if the applicant is found medically fit, he should report for duty within a period of 7 days from the date of such communication.