Political Influence By Public Servants In Transfer And Posting May Be Sole Ground For Denial Of Relief By Constitutional Court: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has deprecated the act of public servants causing political influence in a matter of their transfer and postings and said it may constitute a sole ground for declining relief.

A Division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and set aside a single judge bench order which had directed reinstatement of Veena M in service without back wages & consequential benefits, although continuity of service was granted for the limited purpose of retirement accruals.

One of the grounds raised by the corporation seeking to set aside the impugned order was that the very conduct of the employee in bringing political influence through a particular Member of Parliament itself disentitled her to the discretionary remedy.

In response, the bench said, “Now a days, this court with lot of penury at heart has been observing the employees invoking political influence inter alia in matters of transfer & posting, which essentially belong to the exclusive domain of the employer/competent authority, who has to take a call after adverting to a host of factors.”

It added “Political interference in service matters is undesirable, to say the least inasmuch as irrelevant factors would figure and that would affect public administration and the interest of the employer. There may be some exceptional cases where a citizen complains to the elected representatives seeking MINUTES for favour, are a case apart. However, the act of public servants causing political influence is a matter of deprecation and that may constitute a sole ground for declining relief in constitutional jurisdiction.”

Further, it said that a person knocking at the doors of a writ court should not have blemish-worthy conduct.

The other grounds raised by the corporation were that the impugned order is liable to be voided since where, which employee should work, belongs to the domain of the employer; merely because there was some health problem, an employee cannot refuse to work in the place of posting. Further, it was stated that despite the direction to report for duty, the respondent remained absent amounting to misconduct and the medical report was not favourable to her.

The respondent informed the court that her client was put to great difficulty because of the wrong attitude of the employer. It was said that she had an allergy problem that came in the way of working at the particular place and therefore she had sought for posting elsewhere; the distance she was required to travel on a daily basis was about 3 km, and there were no washroom facilities there either.

Findings:

On going through the records the court noted that ordinarily, every employee is liable to be transferred and that the transferred employee is liable to report for duty to the other place.

Then it said “It hardly needs to be stated that the employer alone is best suited to judge as to the existence of exigencies of service requiring transfer & posting; courts cannot run a race of opinions. Again it is the employer who decides which employee should work where, subject to statutory exceptions.”

Observing that transfer creates some hardship to any employee, the court said that is inevitable and grievances can be worked out for such hardship at the hands of the employer only. It added that such a grievance can be raised only after the employee reports at the place of transfer.

The court was of the view that continued absence from duty despite the rejection of leave application is treated as misconduct in all civilised Service Jurisprudence.

Then it opined “The employee may have some difficulty in attending to the work at the place of posting. There may be commutation problems or the like. These are all incidents of service and grievance has to be worked out with the employer. An employee cannot insist to remain absent till after redressal is granted to her grievance.”

Allowing the appeal the court held that the findings of guilt arrived at in a disciplinary proceeding have presumptive sanctity and therefore they cannot be readily interfered with, more particularly when a delinquent employee's Departmental Appeal too has failed on merits, as has happened in the case at hands.

It held that the position in regard to the quantum of punishment belongs to the domain of disciplinary authority/employer and therefore it allowed the appeal in the above circumstances and stated that the punishment of compulsory retirement would be upheld.

However, it was clarified that “Whatever benefits accruing on account of compulsory retirement should be handed to the employee within an outer limit of eight weeks reckoned from this day, she complying with the prerequisites therefor. Delay would entitle her interest at the rate of 2% per mensum till monetary benefits, if any, are remitted to her account.”

Appearance: Advocate H.M Muralidhar for Appellants.

Advocate Suma Kedilaya for Respondent

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 279

Case Title: Karnataka Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Others AND Veena M

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1534 OF 2016

Click Here To Read/Download Order