Transfer- an incidence of service

The legal position has been crystallized in number of judgments that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. In   Gujarat   Electricity     Board     and    another   v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani AIR 1989 SC 1433, the supreme court had an occasion to examine the case of almost similar nature. This court observed as under:

     "Transfer from one place to another is necessary in  public interest and efficiency in the public  administration.     Whenever, a public servant is  transferred he must comply with the order but if    there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to  the competent authority for stay, modification or  cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of  transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order  of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the     transfer order a public servant has no justification     to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the     ground of having made a representation, or on the   ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to  the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would expose   himself to disciplinary action under the relevant  Rules, as has happened in the instant case. The   respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the  other."

   In Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1724, the settled legal position has been reiterated. The court held that absence from duty without proper intimation is indicated to be a grave offence warranting removal from service.

In Civil Appeal no    968      OF 2009 Tushar D. Bhatt   v.      State of Gujarat & Another decided by the supreme court on 12/02/2009,(Hon. Dalveer Bhandari and Hon. J.M. Panchal, JJ. ), in the entire tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant defied the transfer order and  leveled  allegations    against   his       superiors    and     remained unauthorisedly absent from official duties for more than six months. The supreme court held that In the interest of discipline of any institution or organization such an approach and attitude of the employees cannot be countenanced.