a CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ‘CALCUTTA BENCH No. MA 350/00243/2016 (OA 350/00682/2016 (OA 350/00588/2016 reat Hone Ma Bioha Banerjee Judicial Member GOUTAM CHAKRABORTY DIPAK SAR, vs [UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (AIR) the applicant. —«~—=«Mr.A.Chakraborty, counsel ‘MeP.Mondal, counsel For the respondents ‘Mr.8.K.Ghosh, counsel order on : 97-616 | ORDER | { | ‘These matters are taken up in the Single Bench in terms of Appendix VII cra rc nnn tinge involved, and with the consent of both sides 2, Since identical issues have been pleaded the matters are taken up analogously and wil be governed by this common order. ‘an order dated 5.2.16 issued by Dy. Director (Administration) for ios General, All India Radio (AIR in short), New Delbi is under challenge in present OA whereby and whereunder Dipak Sar (applicant in OA 558/16), | {UDC who was easier transferred to Chinsurah vide order dated 22.9.16 was i directed to be wansferred to AIR, Kursheong and similarly autam r ‘Chakraborty (applicant in OA 682/16), UDC who was earlier directed to be iI rune to Murshiabad vide onder dated 22.16 by the Head of Office, of the earlier trans Be Pee rents im ment tan | rca ana 3, The letter dated 11.5.16 issued by Dy. Director Administration for Director General reads as under :wa | om oseossnantesarnity | Daa tunans + Subject: OA No. 350/00588/2016 filed by Shri Dipak Sar & Goutam | (Chakraborty at CAT, Calcitta Bench, Kolkata jon ta Set TEES Sit No ie, abate reed SLI SRS lol que one st ce te, 36420 gece SE han st fl mde dated 2a nats tng tae psig of err care | TRE ret yore ten posed ser croton Oe er are bat tere wenn) 2 pg ll Newaencren comets ry ee, ny a edly reured te ese, ‘the superior authority vested in Director General, All India Radio, (DG, AIR) ee lt ating acy fr sda cdi | a Se hh rer ot emi wih gogo ee aioli Oe mie daet 1 a018 Ae ch Decor Reeaies Suet fh contng per totam eros 1 | overrule the order issued by the zonal head. | | ‘This is with reference to AIR, Kolkata letter No. Kol-1(24/2016- | 3°" in the instant case, DG, AIR having received several oral complaints ‘against said offcials and being aware of the underlying turmoil and invest among ifs employees af the stations and keeping the administrative i ‘exigencies of ensuring smooth day-to-day functioning of the stations took fhe decision to transjer the said officials. In any case these officials had i atready completed their prescribed tenure at the station, I reiterated | {hat there ts no basis ofthe charge that the transfer has been affected to / { | I ee ime oe {kei erate a a” i 4., On 1.4.16 Dipak Sar preferred a repretentation tothe director General, AIR, Akashbani Bhawan and requested for an enquiry in regard to the order ated 22:.16 00 to why hia name was nominated for out of fur transer gnovng the Praar Bharati order dated 248.15: The applicant farther said that he was posed on compassonate ground to be abl to lok ater hs age ting mother who io 75 years old and as it was not possible for him to tosintsin two separate etalihments simultaneously. He also eubmited that | ehad commited nominator pd and eprint | nat ome conspiracy was hatched by someone having any vested interest This i — by representations dated 29.9.16 tothe Dy. Director General (P). | Bimtaty Gautam Chakrabory had prefered representations 10 the said | ‘authority. ia agin xn vashcecdeipers tip = Jhearing that the transfer order under challenge was not issued by Director ! aGeneral, AIR. The fact was that the transfer order dated 5.4.16 is bad due to the following reasons : |) Te was not issued by Director General, AIR. Rather it was issued by | _Dy, Director for Director General. | i tewas not routed through Placement Committee despite a mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court ii) The earlier transfer order by which the applicant Dipak Sar was posted to Chinsurah and Gautam Chakraborty was posted 10 ‘Murshidabad, was issued by the Director General ||) Seniors with longer aty have been retained at the same place. ¥) The transfers were punitive in nature as the office order dated 11.5.16 manifests 6. Per contra ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the transfer order was issued by competent authority. It could not be served as the applicant was not available in the office and it was not mandatory to get the recommended by a Placement Committee. 7. Thave heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record, 8. It was argued that in the wake of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble ‘bx Court dated 91.102018 in Wht Petition (C) 82/2011, it became ‘mandatory for the Central Govt. departments to issue transfer orders through ‘appropriate Placement Committee at least in regard to transfers of Civil Servants. 9. Itis noticed that on 24.8.15 probably keeping the direction of the Hon'ble ‘Avex Court in mind, the Prasar Bharatifn supersesson of is earlier onder dated 16,7.15, had constituted a committee of the following members for fer of its Group ‘C’ and erstwhile Group ‘D’ employees, extracts whereof would be as under + ‘of Cadres ‘Competent | Recommending ‘Transfers and ‘Authorityl | Committee Staff Level(s) Group € aod | Administration [Zonal Wead Joint Botabishinent ‘efstwhile Group, (Head of [Committee ~ Head ofsch constitution was laeued with the approval ofthe Chief Executive ‘officer, Praser Bharati. The order did not indicate that in case of emergencies or due w eigeneies of serie or on ompletion of term, the muthorides were 28 i ay to deviate rom the manner in which the ansfere had tobe aes a a es nl ees bbe guided by Une maxim () UNUS EST EXCLUSION ALTERIUS ~ meaning whatever has Pot been included has by implication been excluded | expressun PACIT CBSSARE TACITEA - meaning when ters is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned | excluded. 451. ‘Therefore in my considered opinion the transfer ofthe present applicant's 2 Sec er ev ecutive Officer, Prosar Bharati as issued on 24.8:15, was iemued without Juvedioion and competene. The juifaton gen By ‘He Oy Director (eaminiosation for the Director Ceneralyas contended in the ltier dated 1116s without the approval ofthe Chief Bective Ofer Pranar Bharat, god therefore lacking legality and propriety. lo, ecordingly the transfer orders are quashed with Hoary 1 Snatch 18 er ‘he Chiet Executive Ofce, Prasar Bharati No order i passed as tocoats @ Ceretied 1 » IDS wef