Summary
The appellant was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service (KARNATAKA Cadre) in 1957, and on May 5, 1990 he was holding the post of Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of KARNATAKA, and by a Notification dated May 5, 1990 was appointed a Chief Secretary to the KARNATAKA Government until further orders.
In the State of KARNATAKA there was originally one post of Chief Secretary to the Government. An ex-cadre post of Additional Chief Secretary was created with a declaration under Rule 9(1) of IAS (Pay) Rules that the status and responsibilities of the said post were equivalent to the cadre post of Chief Secretary, and this post was thereafter encadred by Notification dated January 30, 1987 with the same pay as of the post of Chief Secretary. The post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was created by the State Government of Karnataka in 1989 with the designation Chairman, Hyderabad, Karnataka Development Board by order dated September 27, 1989, and was declared equivalent to the status and responsibilities to the cadre post of Additional Chief Secretary under Rule 9 of IAS (Pay) Rules. The posts of Chief Secretary, Secretary, High Power Committee and Additional Chief Secretary thus carried equal pay.On January 3, 1991, the Cabinet Government of Karnataka took a decision to the effect that a change of the Chief Secretary should be effected, and pursuant thereto, the Chief Minister on January 4,1991 took the following three decisions, and passed consequential orders viz; (i) declaring that the post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was equivalent in status and responsibilities to the post of Chief Secretary to the Government, (ii) transferring the appellant, to the post of Secretary, High Power Committee with immediate effect, and (iii) appointing the 4th respondent, who was senior to the appellant to the post of Chief Secretary to the Government. The Notification giving effect to the above orders of transfer was issued on January 4, 1991 but the authenticated Government order declaring the equivalent of the two posts under Rule 9 of lAS (Pay) Rules, was issued on the next day, viz; January 5, 1991.The appellant made an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore for quashing the order dated January 4, 1991 transferring and posting him as Secretary, High Power Committee for Development of Hyderabad, Karnataka area, Bangalore, and for a direction to allow him to continue as the Chief Secretary. The order was challenged mainly on two grounds: (1) that such order was not passed bona fide for the exigencies of the administration but the same was passed mala fide by the Chief Minister of Karnataka who became displeased with the appellant on account of his unfavourable attitude and resistance to some of the proposals of the Chief Minister in the matter of posting of senior officers of the State to different posts, and (2) that the transfer order was vitiated because of non-compliance of the procedural formalities for a valid transfer of the appellant as there was no declaration under Rule 9(1) of IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 that the post of Secretary, High Power Committee was equivalent to the post of Chief Secretary.The respondents viz; State of Karnataka, the Chief Minister as also respondent No. 4 denied the allegations relating to the malice of facts and contended that they were mischievous, malicious, scandalous and vexatious and such allegations were deliberately made to malign the respondents, and contended that the post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was equivalent to the post of Additional Chief Secretary and such declaration had been made long back, and the post of Additional Chief Secretary and the post of Chief Secretary were also equivalent and interchangeable, and that the appellant can have no grievance against the said orders of transfer, and that there is also no occasion to contend that the declaration, required as under Rule 9(1) of IAS (Pay) Rules had not been made.The Central Administrative Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances came to the finding that the freedom to choose a person as the Chief Secretary to the liking of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet on whom there is absolute confidence, is undisputed prerogative, and such decision becomes unassailable when it is made in bona fide manner following the statutory formalities applicable to such selection and appointment, and that the appellant had no subsisting right to remain as Chief Secretary and it was the prerogative of the Chief Minister and the Cabinet to take a decision to appoint a person to the post of Chief Secretary. The Tribunal also held that the appellant had failed to establish that he had been transferred with the ulterior motive of placing him in a lower post and thereby permanently preventing him from continuing in the position and status of Chief Secretary. The application was accordingly dismissed.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal the appellant appealed to this Court by Special leave and contended that the declaration of equivalence under Rule 9(1) of IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 is an essential statutory requirement and without such declaration of equivalence no member in the cadre of IAS can be transferred to a non-cadre post, and after encadrement of the post of Additional Chief Secretary the declaration of equivalence which was made earlier lost its force, and that equivalence is referable only to an ex-cadre post and ex-hypothesi declaration of equivalence cannot come in inter se posts within the cadre.It was also submitted that the order of transfer of the appellant and also the order of posting of respondent No. 4 had taken place simultaneously in undue haste even without making a declaration of equivalence and this only indicates that there had not been any bona fide and proper exercise to find out the most suitable person for the post of Chief Secretary in the normal way.The Attorney General appearing with the Advocate General of the State of Karnataka for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, namely, the State of Karnataka and the Chief Minister of Karnataka, opposed the appeal and submitted that the post of Chairman, Karnataka Hyderabad Development Board was created on September 1, 1989 and respondent No. 4 was holding a very high and responsible office at the relevant time, and senior to the appellant as a member of the Indian Administrative Service, and that since the Cabinet and the Chief Minister had taken a decision to relieve the appellant from the post of Chief Secretary, there had been a necessity to find out a competent senior officer in the Indian Administrative Service Cadre in the State, that as no departmental proceedings had been pending against him the Cabinet and the Chief Minister had taken a decision to appoint Respondent No. 4 being the seniormost person in the Indian Administrative Service cadre in the State, having a long experience in different administrative set up and conversant with the problems of the State as Chief Secretary, and such decision is not ex facie perverse and unjustified.Dismissing the appeal, this Court,HELD: 1. The appellant has not been able to lay any firm foundation warranting a finding that the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide and/or an oblique purpose in order to punish the appellant and/or to humiliate him.[387-E]In the instant case, the pleadings of the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal only indicate that some of his suggestions in the matter of posting of senior bureaucratic officers of the State had not been accepted by the present Chief Minister of the State. Such facts alone do not constitute any foundation for a finding that because the appellant was not agreeable to oblige the Chief Minister, he had incurred the displeasure of the Chief Minister and the impugned orders had been passed not on administrative exigencies but only to malign the appellant and to humiliate him.[387-F]2. It is an admitted position that the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister had differences of opinion on a number of sensitive matters. If on that score, the Cabinet and the Chief Minister had taken a decision to relieve the appellant from the post of Chief Secretary and post a very senior officer of their confidence to the post of Chief Secretary, it cannot be held that such decision is per se illegal or beyond the administrative authority. [388-B]3. It may not always be possible to demonstrate malice in fact with full and elaborate particulars and it may be permissible in an appropriate case to draw reasonable inference of mala fide from the facts pleaded and established. But such inference must be based on factual matrix and such factual matrix cannot remain in the realm of insinuation, surmise or conjecture. [387-G]4. So far invalidity of the impugned order of transfer for want of declaration or equivalence under Rule 9(1) ofIAS (Pay) Rules is concerned, it is indicated that here had already been a declaration when the re-designated post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was established that the said post was equivalent to the post of Additional Chief Secretary. It is the positive stand of the State Government that the post of Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary are equivalent. [388-C-D]5. Prior to the impugned orders, a decision to declare the post of Secretary, High Power Committee equivalent to the post of Chief Secretary of the State had been taken.Since the impugned order of transfer was implemented with immediate effect, the formal publication could not be made on the very same day but was made on January 5,1991, viz., on the very next day. In such circumstances the formal declaration made on January 5,1991 does not invalidate the impugned order of transfer. [388-E-Fl- E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 S.C.555, relied on.See the full content of this document
Extract
M. Sankaranarayanan Ias. VS. State Of Karnataka And Ors.
PETITIONER: M. SANKARANARAYANAN IAS.Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT11/11/1992BENCH: [M.H. KANIA, CJ. AND C.N. RAY, J.]ACT: Civil Service: Transfer- Mala fides-Inference of-When arises Administrative Law-Mala fides-Malice infact-Inferences can be drawn on basis of factual matrix-Not on insinuations conjectures and surmises Indian Administrative (Pay) Rules 1954: Indian Administrative (Cadre) Rules: Rule 4 Chief Secretary transferred as Secretary High Powered Committee-Mala fides-Held not proved-Inference to be based on factual matrix not insinuation surmise or conjecture- Declaration of equivalence of post made by State Government held valid.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4090 of 1991.From the Order dated 7.2.1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Original Application No. 11 of 1991.K.K. Venugopal, B.R.L. Iyengar, E.C. Vidyasagar, D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, L.R. Singh and Shahid Rizvi for the Appellant.G. Ramaswamy, Attorney General, P.P. Muthanna (for the State of Karnataka), Subramanian, M. Verrappa, Kh. Nobin Singh and S. Walia for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.N. RAY, J. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, dated February 7, 1991 passed in Original Application No. 11 of 1991. The appellant, Shri M. Sankaranarayanan, made an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, for quashing the order dated January 4, 1991 transferring and posting him as Secretary High Power Committee for development of Hyderabad, Karnataka area, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as High Power Committee) as contained in Annexure A-4 to the application made before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and for a direction to allow the applicant, Shri Sankaranarayanan, to continue as the (Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. The aforesaid order of transferring and posting the appellant as Secretary, High Power Committee was challenged mainly on two grounds, namely, that such order was not passed bona fide for the exigencies of the administration but the same was passed mala fide by the Chief Minister of Karnataka who became displeased with the appellant...
See the full content of this document