The legal position has been crystallized in number of judgments that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. In Gujarat Electricity Board and another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani AIR 1989 SC 1433, the supreme court had an occasion to examine the case of almost similar nature. This court observed as under:
"Transfer from one place to another is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant Rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other."
In Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1724, the settled legal position has been reiterated. The court held that absence from duty without proper intimation is indicated to be a grave offence warranting removal from service.
In Civil Appeal no 968 OF 2009 Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat & Another decided by the supreme court on 12/02/2009,(Hon. Dalveer Bhandari and Hon. J.M. Panchal, JJ. ), in the entire tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant defied the transfer order and leveled allegations against his superiors and remained unauthorisedly absent from official duties for more than six months. The supreme court held that In the interest of discipline of any institution or organization such an approach and attitude of the employees cannot be countenanced
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें