By Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):

1. Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:-

1.1 The applicant was initially appointed as Programme Executive in Doordarshan in August, 1991. He remained posted at different places and discharged his duties and responsibilities with utmost sincerity and devotion.

1.2 After completion of requisite years of service, he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Programme), but the same was granted to him belatedly by the respondents resorting to illegal appointments at various levels in violation of the recruitment rules. The said act on part of the respondents took away all the promotional posts meant for the applicant and other similarly placed persons.

1.3 The applicant was transferred to Mumbai Doordarshan Kendra on 27th September, 2019. After joining the transferred post, he took various steps for betterment of the Kendra. However, respondent no. 5 started putting stumbling blocks within few days of his taking charge of Mumbai Doordarshan. Apart from that, respondent no. 5 started indulging into corrupt activities and was not ready to correct himself in spite of showing apparent illegalities. The applicant also noticed that respondent no. 5 did not have the knowledge of even basics and the same was causing a huge financial loss to Prasar Bharti.

1.4 The applicant was shocked to see the conduct of respondent no. 5 and made efforts to know as to how he could be appointed as ADG, Doordarshan and finally found out that respondent no. 5 was an illegal appointee. In fact, All India Radio and Doordarshan had two modes of recruiting programme professionals i.e. National Selection by SSC/UPSC as per recruitment rules and partly on contract basis. However, in the year 1984 to bring utmost professionalism in the programme cadre of this two premier organizations, it was decided to completely do away with the contractual engagement. Accordingly, statutory recruitment rules were framed for recruitment to the senior posts of programme cadre in Group-A and B categories.

1.5 As DPCs were not held for about 20 years, a large number of posts were kept vacant and even eligible/ qualified employees are languishing without any promotion. The respondents by violating the prescribed rules and regulations of IB(P)S have appointed private respondent nos. 5 & 6 as ADG, who are from Indian Telecommunication Service Cadre (ITS) and posted as ADG (Programme), Doordarshan, Mumbai and Delhi on deputation basis and the deputation period of respondent no.5 has been extended vide letters dated 21.09.2020 and 25.09.2021 without there being any provision to do so.

1.6 The applicant’s promotion was affected due to illegal appointment of respondent nos. 5 & 6. Therefore, he raised the said issue inasmuch as respondent no.5 was causing damage to Doordarshan Kendra, Mumbai by indulging in corrupt activities. The applicant also requested respondent nos. 2 & 3 to ensure that respondent no. 5 should not write his APAR. Unfortunately, the respondents ignored the request of the applicant and swayed away by influence of respondent no.5. Resultantly, the applicant was transferred from DDK, Mumbai to International Relations, Prasar Bharati Secretariat, Delhi vide order dated 12.11.2021 before completion of normal tenure at the best of respondent no. 5.

1.7 One Dr. Ms. Rupa Mehta was transferred prematurely and her transfer was set aside by this Tribunal in OA No.196/2014 decided on 27.06.2014 holding the same to be violative of transfer policy.

1.8 In nutshell, the applicant has been transferred in violation of transfer policy at the behest of respondent no.5, who developed personal biasness against him. The applicant, who was serving as Assistant Director (P), has been deprived from serving as Head of Programme, Doordarshan Kendra, Mumbai like other similarly placed officers of the same level. In some of the Kendras even Programme Executive have been made Head of the Programme.

1.9 Aggrieved, the applicant filed the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

(i) To quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 12.11.2021 to the extent the applicant has been transferred from Mumbai to Delhi.

(ii) To allow the OA with cost

(iii) To pass any such other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Per contra, the respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant and stated that in view of the applicant’s abilities and various tasks accomplished by him, it was decided by the competent authority, due to administrative exigency, that his skills and competence would be of more use in International Relations, Prasar Bharati Secretariat, New Delhi. Government policy, in general, provides that all Group-A officers and Group-B gazetted posts coming under Prasar Bharati are covered under “All India Transfer Liability”.

2.1 It is vehemently stated that in the past due to administrative exigency, the applicant had been transferred in December, 2015 from Delhi to DDK, Pune; in December, 2017 from DDK Pune to Delhi and he was again transferred from Delhi to DDK, Mumbai in September, 2019. Even the instant transfer from DDK, Mumbai to Delhi has also been made in administrative exigency.

2.2 The present OA is an afterthought and mudslinging action on the part of the applicant whereby his representation dated 26.10.2021 followed by letter dated 10.11.2021 is nothing but details about allegations with respect to malpractices against a senior officer.

2.3 The applicant made yet another representation dated 14.11.2021 raising new grounds including allegation against the appointment of a senior officer along with request for his own promotion. The entire exercise of raising allegations to withhold the transfer policy is a camouflage to intimidate the department to continue him at DDK, Mumbai and in the garb of threatening behaviour with arm twisting technique try to illegally claim his own promotion to the post of ADG (SAG Scale) to which he is not even eligible as he had been promoted in ADP (JTS) scale only in April, 2019. Hence, both the reasons raised by the applicant to withhold his transfer are administrative action and have no relation whatsoever with the transfer of the applicant.

2.4 The allegation of the applicant that his transfer is bad in law is not correct as transfer on administrative exigency can be made at any time as per the transfer policy itself. The allegation qua his instant transfer is not tenable as he had never raised such an objection while his earlier transfers were effected in 2015, 2017 and 2019, which were also done before four years’ period as per transfer policy due to administrative exigency.

2.5 Any malpractice by any officer is undoubtedly a serious issue and needs proper investigation, however, the changing stand of the applicant for malpractices to raising appointment issue in his various representations itself creates doubt on his integrity. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has been appreciated for his work done and, thus, he has been transferred as per administrative needs of the department, which cannot be questioned by the applicant by an act of mudslinging and maligning the image of a higher officer.

2.6 It is not for the applicant to insist to transfer him or not to transfer him at a particular place. Rather, it is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement of the department as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Namrata Verma vs State of U.P. [SLP No.36717 of 2017 decided on 06.09.2021].

2.7 Insofar as the allegation that DPCs have not met for a long time is concerned, it is stated that regular DPCs could not be held for a long time for the vacancies of 01.04.1993 onwards due to prolonged litigation before various judicial fora. However, this has nothing to do with the applicant’s transfer.

2.8 In view of the aforementioned contentions, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA as the respondents are right in transferring the applicant from DDK, Mumbai to Delhi in administrative exigency.

3. Heard Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for R-1 and Ms. Vertika Sharma, learned counsel for R-2 to R-6 and perused the pleadings available on record. We have also gone through the citations relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties.

4. It is a trite law that transfer of an employee is an incidence of service and if it is on administrative grounds, the authority ordering such a transfer is well within its right to decide as to which particular official would be best suited for the job requirement of which post and at which particular station. It is certainly not for the employee to insist on any particular place of posting or any particular post.

4.1 The facts of the present matter indicate that the impugned transfer of the applicant had been issued in administrative exigencies keeping in view the competency/skills of the applicant which are best suited to the work at their office at New Delhi.

4.2 Another issue raised by the applicant is that the prescribed tenure of posting was for 4 years whereas he has been transferred before completion of the said tenure. Here again, as has been brought out by learned counsel for the respondents, the applicant had been transferred to other stations in the past also before completion of the prescribed tenure. The applicant had never objected to the same. Moreover, these transfers had been ordered by an authority who was authorized and competent to do so in administrative exigencies.

4.3 Learned counsel for the applicant had also taken the plea that the wife of the applicant is working with University of Mumbai and in terms of DOP&T’s OM No.28034/9/2009-Estt(A) dated 30.09.2009, husband and wife should be posted at the same station. On this issue, it is pertinent to mention that Government of India have stressed the need of posting husband and wife at the same station as far as possible. The applicant had never raised this issue in the past when he was posted at stations other than Mumbai. Moreover, his wife is working with University of Mumbai and obviously her job is non-transferable. Going by the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant would never be transferred out of Mumbai on this ground.

4.4 Learned counsel for the applicant had argued that it was at the behest of respondent no.5 that the applicant had been transferred out of Mumbai. During the course of arguments, despite being repeatedly asked to show any documentary evidence to substantiate the said allegation, learned counsel for the applicant was unable to do so. Obviously no cognizance can be taken of an unsubstantiated allegation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the person against whom the applicant had made a complaint has since been repatriated and is no longer with the respondents.

4.6 In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents were well within their right to issue the impugned transfer order. The present OA, therefore, lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

4.7 Pending MAs, if any, also stands disposed of.

5. No order as to costs.