1997 JTR(SC) 938
1997 AIR(SC) 3067 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 3105 ; 1997 2 AllCJ 1315 ; 1998 4 ALT(SC) 24 ; 1998 1 AWC 342 ; 1997 2 CLR 461 ; 1997 6 JT 229 ; 1997 LIC 2899 ; 1997 4 LLN 109 ; 1998 1 RSJ 3 ; 1997 4 Scale 742 ; 1997 6 SCC 169 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1437 ; 1997 SCR 231 ; 1997 3 SCT 446 ; 1997 4 SLR 779 ; 1997 2 UJ 341 ; 1997 3 UPLBEC 1647 ; 1997 WBLR 385 ; 1997 KHC 953 ; 1998 5 Supreme 167
1998(5) Supreme 167
Supreme Court of India
(From Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad)
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Shri Arvind Dattatraya Dhande -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4651 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 494 of 1997)
Decided on 10-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : L.N. Rao, S.U.K. Sagar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : D.M. Nargolkar, S.M. Jadhav, Advocates.
Important Point
Where transfer order of a public servant is a case of victimisation of an honest officer and is mala fide exercise of power to demoralise honest officer, it is liable to be quashed.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statutory framework governing service law and excise administration is engaged in this matter, where the exercise of official discretion concerning licensing, prosecution, and transfer orders intersects with procedural fairness and the protection of civil service personnel. The authorities are required to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice, ensuring that decisions such as licence cancellation and transfers are not mala fide, arbitrary, or influenced by extraneous considerations such as pressure from vested commercial interests. The procedural safeguards under the excise rules demand that an officers performance review and any punitive or adverse administrative action must be based on clear, contemporaneous evidence and subject to an objective assessment, rather than being a response to complaints lodged in bad faith.
(B) Key legal principles include the duty of the administration to act fairly and rationally, the prohibition against victimisation of officers who perform their duties diligently, the requirement that transfer orders must be in public interest, and the obligation to base administrative decisions on verifiable records rather than extraneous complaints.
Facts of the case:
An excise officer conducted a raid and collected samples on seven dates, leading to the registration of offences based on an analysis report indicating adulteration with a poisonous substance. The officer sought prosecution and licence cancellation, which was granted, but subsequently faced complaints from the licensee and associated parties. These complaints triggered departmental proceedings, resulting in the officer being transferred. The record indicated that the officer had met performance targets and that the transfer followed the complaints, raising concerns about mala fide motivation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the transfer was mala fide and arbitrary, motivated by the aggrieved commercial interests rather than any deficiency in the officers performance. The glowing performance review and the timing of the transfer, immediately following the complaints by parties with a commercial stake, demonstrated that the action was intended to demoralise honest officers.
Issues:
Whether an administrative transfer can be justified when based on complaints filed in bad faith, whether the doctrine of victimisation applies to public servants, and whether the decision-maker complied with the principles of natural justice and acted in public interest.
Ratio Decidendi:
Administrative action, including transfer of an officer, must be grounded in objective assessment of performance and free from bias or retaliation against officers who act diligently; where the evidence shows that the transfer was influenced by extraneous complaints from parties with commercial motives, it is mala fide and must be quashed.
Result:
The transfer order is quashed and the appeal is allowed, with a direction to communicate the order to the Chief Secretary for appropriate action against those responsible.
(A) The relevant statutory framework governing service law and excise administration is engaged in this matter, where the exercise of official discretion concerning licensing, prosecution, and transfer orders intersects with procedural fairness and the protection of civil service personnel. The authorities are required to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice, ensuring that decisions such as licence cancellation and transfers are not mala fide, arbitrary, or influenced by extraneous considerations such as pressure from vested commercial interests. The procedural safeguards under the excise rules demand that an officers performance review and any punitive or adverse administrative action must be based on clear, contemporaneous evidence and subject to an objective assessment, rather than being a response to complaints lodged in bad faith.
(B) Key legal principles include the duty of the administration to act fairly and rationally, the prohibition against victimisation of officers who perform their duties diligently, the requirement that transfer orders must be in public interest, and the obligation to base administrative decisions on verifiable records rather than extraneous complaints.
Facts of the case:
An excise officer conducted a raid and collected samples on seven dates, leading to the registration of offences based on an analysis report indicating adulteration with a poisonous substance. The officer sought prosecution and licence cancellation, which was granted, but subsequently faced complaints from the licensee and associated parties. These complaints triggered departmental proceedings, resulting in the officer being transferred. The record indicated that the officer had met performance targets and that the transfer followed the complaints, raising concerns about mala fide motivation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the transfer was mala fide and arbitrary, motivated by the aggrieved commercial interests rather than any deficiency in the officers performance. The glowing performance review and the timing of the transfer, immediately following the complaints by parties with a commercial stake, demonstrated that the action was intended to demoralise honest officers.
Issues:
Whether an administrative transfer can be justified when based on complaints filed in bad faith, whether the doctrine of victimisation applies to public servants, and whether the decision-maker complied with the principles of natural justice and acted in public interest.
Ratio Decidendi:
Administrative action, including transfer of an officer, must be grounded in objective assessment of performance and free from bias or retaliation against officers who act diligently; where the evidence shows that the transfer was influenced by extraneous complaints from parties with commercial motives, it is mala fide and must be quashed.
Result:
The transfer order is quashed and the appeal is allowed, with a direction to communicate the order to the Chief Secretary for appropriate action against those responsible.
Order
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. It is most unfortunate that the Government demoralises the officers who discharge the duties honestly and diligently and brings to book the persons indulging in black marketing and contrabanding the liquor. This is one of the eloquent case where such a sorry state of affairs has come to light.
3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, made on December 6, 1996 in O.A. No. 925 of 1995 upholding the order of transfer of the appellant. We directed the learned counsel appearing for the State to produce the record and the material which is made the basis for transfer of the appellant. The sequence to be mentioned hereunder stands testimony to the facts. The transfer is nothing but mala fide and arbitrary action at the behest of the persons interested to target the honest officers who efficiently discharge the duties.
4. On December 28, 1994, the appellant conducted a raid on Mr. Rathod at Dharayan Tal. Erandol Amalner Tal, Amalner. Sample was taken from the toddy for analysis on the seven date; consequently, offences were registered on December 29, 1994, on the basis of the Analyses Report received on August 25, 1995. It revealed that that toddy was adulterated. Therein, it was clearly stated that it contained Chloral Hydrate, a very harmful and poisonous substance which could endanger the lives of the consumers. The appellant asked for permission of the competent authorities to prosecute the licensee and also for cancellation of the licence. By his proceedings of even date, i.e., August 25, 1995, permission was granted. As a counter-blast to sincere and legal action taken by the appellant against Mr. Narayana Goud, the toddy contractor, the latter lodged his complaint against the appellant on August 30, 1995 and the Minister for District (designated as Guaradia Minister) repeated the complaint to the Minister for State. Excise on the basis of the contractor’s complaint on September 28, 1995. This is lynching point where the officer was alleged to be wanting in duty. It would be obvious that that based upon this complaint given by the Guaradia Minister to the Minister for State Excise, triggered another complaint by one Shewala, President of the Country Liquor Association on October 7, 1995 Pursuant to the permission for cancellation of the licence, licence came to be cancelled on September 24, 1996. On the basis of these complaints, the action appears to have been initiated as per the proceedings dated November 18, 1995. Action was taken against the appellant and ultimately he came to be transferred. It is seen that the officer supposed to review the performance of the duties of the officers on July 7, 1995, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Excise had reviewed and stated that from March 25 to May 23, 1995 he collected articles Rs. 34,996.00, Rs. 1,91,853.00 and Rs. 1,80,145.00 in three months. In his commandation he has stated that “after considering the abovesaid particulars, except Mr. A.D. Dhande, Inspector Flying Squad Jalgaon” not a single officer had fulfilled the required quota.” “Please congratulate Mr. Dhande on my behalf for his excellent work and for he has fulfilled his target.” It was signed by S.A. Patil, Deputy Commissioner, Excise.
5. In view of the unimpeachable and eloquent testimony of the performance of the duties, it will be obvious that the transfer is not in public interest but is a case of victimisation of an honest officer at the behest of the aggrieved complainants carrying on the business in liquor and toddy. Under these circumstances, as stated earlier, the transfer of the appellant is nothing but mala fide exercise of the power to demoralise honest officers who would efficiently discharge the duties of a public office.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The transfer order of the appellant stands quashed. Order may be communicated to the Chief Secretary to take appropriate action against the persons responsible for it and the action taken may be informed to this Registry.
Appeal allowed.
*********