A.K. Chawla JUDGMENT
A.K. Chawla, J.
W.P. (C) 38/2019, CM APPL. 209/2019
1. By the instant petition, the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Stenographer Gr-I in the year 2005 and with successive promotions was appointed as Junior Officer/Private Secretary on 01.07.2018, assails and seeks quashing of her transfer no. 109/2018 dated 05.12.2018 and the relieving order no. 201/1419 dated 06.12.2018.
2. The impugned transfer/office order 109/2018 dated 05.12.2018, reads as under:
"Ms. Veena Devi, Jr. Officer (Private Secretary)/Corporate office is transferred and posted as Regional Office/ER with immediate effect.
This has the approval of the Competent Authority.
sd/-"
The very next day, the respondent passed the impugned relieving order no. 201/1419 dated 06.12.2018, which reads as under:
"In terms of Corporate Office order No. 109/2018 issued vide letter no. 259/2/2700 dated 05.12.2018, Ms. Veena Devi, Jr. Officer (Private Secretary) is hereby relieved from her duties on the close hours on 06.12.2018. She is advised to report to Regional Office/Easter Region for further orders.
sd/-"
Was the subject transfer effected to meet any exigency or for better administration of the affairs of the respondents and did not suffer from any malafides or ulterior motives, is the short question for consideration in the instant petition. One would find catena of judgments to the effect that transfer and posting is an incident of service and the prerogative of the employer in such matters cannot be interfered with, unless, it comes to be shown that the action of transfer or posting suffered from the vice of malice or was punitive. In the subject context, it would suffice, if the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India MANU/SC/8494/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 592 are adverted to:
"16. Indisputably an order of transfer is, an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds-one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal."
3. In view of the foregoing and to cut short the controversy, during the course of hearing, Mr. Bhasin, ld. Senior Counsel for the respondent was queried as to what were the reasons for sudden transfer of the petitioner from Delhi to the Regional Office/Eastern Region, with immediate effect. To meet the query, Mr. Bhasin, ld. Senior Counsel adverted to para 8 of the counter-affidavit, which is as under:
"8. The respondent acted at the request of the petitioner. Since there was no suitable post available in the NR (Northern Region)/NCR (North Central Region), and the respondent authority has been receiving request from the Eastern Region for Secretarial Assistant. Accordingly, the respondent authority has issued the transfer order and the relieving order which were impugned by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition. The allegations of discrimination in transfer and atrocit........