Cyriac Joseph JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
Leave granted.
1. A short but an interesting question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the High Court while quashing an order of transfer passed against the appellant was correct in directing that he would not be entitled to salary for the period commencing 15 days after the modified order of transfer to Ahmedabad was passed till the date he again joined his duties at the original place.
2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellant is an officer of Indian Revenue Service. He was posted as a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise at Bhopal.
3. Inter alia, on the premise that the employees posted at the Bhopal office of the respondents apprehending disciplinary as also criminal proceedings at the hands of the appellant on the basis of the reassessment of the files undertaken by him, an anonymous complaint was made alleging caste-bias on his part, pursuant whereto an order of transfer was passed against him on or about 22nd August, 2005.
4. Prior thereto he had filed a representation stating that, as he had been undergoing some treatment, he should be retained at Bhopal. Appellant, however, contended that in view of the fact that he had taken action against some erring officers, they were instrumental in sending the said anonymous letter on the basis whereof no action should have been taken in the light of the circular letters issued by the Central Vigilance Commission.
5. It is, however, accepted that an enquiry was conducted by an Assistant Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance, into the said anonymous complaint wherein allegations made against the appellant were not found to be true but still recommendations were made that he be transferred from Bhopal. Only on that basis he was transferred to Shillong.
6. He indisputably made a representation praying that on compassionate and humanitarian grounds, he may be retained at Bhopal for at least one year. The said representation was not responded to.
7. In the aforementioned factual backdrop, he filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench which was marked as O.A. No. 897 of 2005. By an order dated 27th September, 2005, having regard to the fact that the representation filed by the appellant had not been disposed of by the authorities of the respondents, it was directed:
4. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 29th August, 2005 (Annexure A-5) and take a decision by passing a speaking, detailed and reasoned order within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the decision is taken by the Respondent No. 2 on the representation of the applicant, he will not be disturbed from the present place of posting. The learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to send a copy of this order as well as the copy of the petition to the Respondent No. 2 immediately.
8. By an order dated 19th October, 2005 the said representation was rejected.
9. Another representation was filed by the appellant on or about 25th October, 2005, stating:<........