P. Ramakrishnan v. Union of India and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/7TH MAGHA, 1938 OP (CAT).No. 37 of 2017 (Z) AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 180/00416/2016 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 12-01-2017 ## PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT: P.RAMAKRISHNAN, (FORMERLY WORKING AS SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES), PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678 001, RESIDING AT SREERANGAM, P.O.PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-674 004. BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (VARKALA) ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: 1. UNION OF INDIA, - REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. SECRETARY (AMS, CPV AND SA), - MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, VIGILANCE UNIT II, CPV DIVISION, PATIALA HOUSE ANNEX, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE SECRETARY (CPV, SB, BC & DGI), MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, VIGILANCE UNIT II, CPV DIVISION, PATIALA HOUSE ANNEX, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001. 4. JOINT SECRETARY, (PSP) AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, VIGILANCE UNIT II, CPV DIVISION, PATIALA HOUSE ANNEX, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001. 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, SANSAD MARG, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 6. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, ODISHA CIRCLE, BHUVANESWAR, ODISHA-751 001. R1-R6 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 37 of 2017 (Z) -------------------------------- : 2 : ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 13/05/2016 IN O.A.NO.416/2016 OF CAT ERNAKULAM WITH ANNEXURES. ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V/IV/575/03/2014 DATED 08.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY (PSP) & CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ST/2-34(2)/2012 DATED 11.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (STAFF) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PMG, ODISHA CIRCLE, BHUBANESWAR TO THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.4-32/2013-SPG DATED 08.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL (SGP) TO THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V.IV/575/03/2014 DATED 09.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY PASSPORT OFFICER (PVA) TO THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.432/2013-SPG DATED 24.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR (STAFF) MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT TO THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION NO.V/VIG.II/843/03/15 DATED 29.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, (AMS, CPV & SA) TO THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 18.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY (AMS, CPV & SA) ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V/VIG.II/843/03/15 DATED 07.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, (CPV,SB, BC & DGI), NEW DELHI TO THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JOINT SECRETARY (PSP) & CPO, NEW DELHI. ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.01.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JOINT SECRETARY (PSP) & CPO, NEW DELHI. ANNEXURE A10: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE COVER CONTAINING ANNEXURE A9 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH POST ST/2-34(3)/2012 DATED 20.05.2015. ANNEXURE A12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.03.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (SPG) DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. OP (CAT).No. 37 of 2017 (Z) -------------------------------- : 3 : ANNEXURE A13: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.2/29/91-ESTT(PAY II) DATED 05.01.1994 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 27/10/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A.NO.416 OF 2016. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 11/11/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2017 OF THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, ODISHA CIRCLE TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL (SPG), MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/06/2016 PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ------------------------------ /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. rv **'CR'** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------O.P.(CAT) No. 37 of 2017 (Z) -----------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of January, 2017.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## Dama Seshadri Naidu,J. The petitioner is the unsuccessful applicant in O.A. No. 180/00416/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. He initially joined the Postal Department in 1982 and came up in ranks to be a Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. While he was working at Palakkad, in 2014 the petitioner was deputed and posted as Passport Officer at Malappuram, the tenure being three years, as seen from Annexure A1. 2. On 20.07.2015, the petitioner was suspended under Rule 10 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: he had been in judicial custody for more than 24 hours on his having been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the charge of corrupt practices. Assailing Annexure A3 order of suspension, the petitioner filed Annexure A4 departmental appeal, which resulted in his reinstatement through Annexure A5. In fact, the appellate authority revoked the petitioner's suspension through Annexure A6 order dated 08.12.2015, and later he was repatriated. But before the petitioner could be repatriated, perhaps in O.P.(C) No.37/2017 -2- anticipation, he submitted Annexure A7 representation to the authorities pleading that if the petitioner was to be repatriated, he should be given reasonable time; then, Annexure A6 order of repatriation followed. Eventually, through Annexure A11, the petitioner was allotted to Odisha Circle. Assailing Annexure A6 order of repatriation and Annexure A11 allotment to Odisha Circle, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 180/00416/2016. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, through its order dated 12.01.2017, refused to interfere. Further aggrieved, the petitioner is before us. 3. Sri N. N. Sugunapalan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the Tribunal’s Ext.P4 order on two grounds: (1) the repatriation is without any reasons; (2) the petitioner’s allotment to Odisha Circle, when about five vacancies are available within the State of Kerala, is totally vindictive and perverse. 4. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned Senior counsel has taken us through the record, especially Annexures A6 and A11 orders. According to him, both the orders are cryptic _sans_ any reason or justification why, in the first place, the petitioner was repatriated and allotted to a distant circle. The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the deputation was neither random nor whimsical: the Department had called for options from eligible employees, subjected O.P.(C) No.37/2017 -3- them to rigorous selection process, and eventually deputed the successful candidates. As seen from Annexure A2, the deputation, contends the learned Senior Counsel, is tenurial. In this context, he has placed reliance on _**Union of India and another v. S.N. Maity and another[1]**_ to hammer home his contention that the authorities cannot lightly interfere with tenurial deputations. 5. The learned Senior Counsel, in the alternative, has submitted that given the tenure of deputation, the petitioner has legitimately expected that he would be continued in his new assignment until the period of deputation came to an end. In other words, Exts.P6 and P11 orders defeat the petitioner’s legitimate expectation. 6. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal’s Ext.P4 order is unassailable. The Tribunal, according to him, has supplied cogent reasons why it has refused to interfere. In elaboration, the learned ASGI has further contended that every transfer cannot be branded punitive merely because an employee has been facing criminal prosecution. It is well established, asserted the learned ASGI, that the administrative exigencies may entail the employer to transfer its staff in the best interest of administration. He emphasizes a well-established legal principle: in a writ of certiorari, the judicial intervention is very limited. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 164 O.P.(C) No.37/2017 -4- And this Court has always been loath to interdict any administrative measure which aids the administrative efficacy. He, therefore, urges us to dismiss the original petition. 7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, apart from perusing the record. 8. As has rightly been contended by the learned Senior Counsel, there are no disputed questions of fact. The petitioner’s singular contention, we reckon, is that both the orders of repatriation and his allotment to what is said to be a distant Circle are devoid of any reason, much less justification. True, both Annexures A6 and A11 are cryptic. We, nevertheless, hasten to add that unless statute mandates that an order, which is essentially administrative, is to be backed up with reasons, this Court is avers to insisting that every step, however routine it may be, needs to be infused with reasons. 9. Here, the petitioner has been facing grave allegations. Further, he has been only on deputation. It is too well established to be disputed that a deputation continues at the employer's pleasure and the repatriation can take place at any point in time. Legion are the precedents. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has referred to many of those precedents and has given cogent reason why neither of the O.P.(C) No.37/2017 -5- orders calls for any interference. 10. At any rate, the learned Senior Counsel has made _S.N. Maity_ the sheet-anchor of his arguments. As seen from the Apex Court’s judgment, once a deputation is tenurial, it cannot be interfered with without compelling reasons, which need to be reflected in the very order. Trying to analogize the facts of this case with those in _S. N. Maity_ , the learned Senior Counsel would have us conclude—though the record is laconic and silent—that in this case, too, the deputation is tenurial. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner faced an examination, got selected, and then deputed. In other words, the deputation is an appointment by deputation, rather than a mere transfer by deputation. 11. There is no cavil that _S.S. Maity_ draws a distinction between deputation by transfer and deputation by appointment. If we were to accept the assertions made across the Bar on their face value, perhaps _S.S. Maity_ would come to the petitioner's rescue. The fact, nevertheless, remains that both before this Court and before the learned Tribunal, the pleadings are laconic and blissfully silent on the mode of deputation. Given the pleadings, the Tribunal has—in our view, rightly— treated the deputation as deputation by transfer and rendered its order accordingly. In a writ of certiorari, this Court is concerned with, usually, O.P.(C) No.37/2017 -6- a jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record which, if left undisturbed, would result in manifest injustice and perversity. Such errors as these alone could be interfered with. 12. Even if the petitioner, hypothetically speaking, could try to supply the deficiency in the pleadings about legitimate expectation, that belated effort, regrettably, could not turn the clock back. In this regard, we may profitably refer to _**U.P. Gram Panchayath Adhikari Sangh & others v. Daya Ram Saroj[2] .**_ The Apex Court has held in para 34 of the judgment that unless there is a foundational pleading concerning the legitimate expectation, it cannot be pressed into service. On facts, _Daya Ram Saroj_ reveals that the employee, at the appellate stage urged, belatedly, the ground of legitimate expectation; it was, perhaps, inspired by the High Court’s observation that the appellant ought to have pleaded legitimate expectation. When the High Court took that plea into account, the Supreme Court has held that such an approach is impermissible. To hold thus, the Apex Court has quoted with approval _**National Buildings Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan[3] .**_ 13. As we have already noted, this Court while exercising certiorari jurisdiction does not concern itself with the errors of fact or even, for that matter, errors of law except those, for instance, apparent > 2 (2007) 2 SCC 138 3 (1998) 7 SCC 66 O.P.(C) No.37/2017 -7- on the face of record, or those resulting in perversity of findings, or those causing manifest injustice. Once the Tribunal has justifiably rendered an order on the strength of the pleadings before it, with the additional materials supplied subsequently, this Court cannot re-visit the impugned order and invalidate it. We, therefore, express our inability to apply the ratio of _S.N. Maity_ to the facts of this case. 14. Further, examining the scope of deputation and the right a deputed employee could have, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Rattilal B Soni v. State of Gujarat[4]**_ has held that an employee on deputation could be reverted to his parent cadre at any time and he does not get any substantial right. 15. In sum, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s is a punitive transfer. Further, for reasons essentially administrative, the Department has repatriated the petitioner and allotted him to Odisha Circle. To a specific query, the learned Senior Counsel has fairly submitted that the petitioner holds an all India Cadre post, and he could as well be transferred on an all India basis. 16. At any rate, the petitioner’s contention remains that given the vacancies existing in the State of Kerala, there does not seem to be any compelling reason for the authority to transfer him to Odisha, a distant place. That said, we should also acknowledge that it lies in the realm of 4 AIR 1990 SC 1132 O.P.(C) No.37/2017 -8- administrative discretion in what manner and at which place it can use its employees’ services. This Court has the least say in those matters. 17. Before parting with the matter, we may consider the petitioner’s alternative plea: given what is said to be the hardship faced by the petitioner and given the-middle-of-the-year transfer, we observe that once the petitioner joins at the place he has been posted, he is free to request the authorities to post him to a nearer place, preferably in the State of Kerala, where posts are still vacant. Then, the authorities may consider the petitioner’s request. We, however, hasten to add that this observation does not amount to any judicial suggestion or recommendation; the authorities may exercise their discretion unfettered and decide according to law. We, therefore, dismiss this original petition. No order on costs. **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.** **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.** _Rv_ O.P.(C) No.37/2017 -9- O.P.(C) No.37/2017 -10-