Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 44

Case Law on Conduct rules

51. It is difficult to define in the abstract what conduct would be "unbecoming of a Corporation employee". It can be answered only in the concrete circumstances of a particular case. What behavior is so unbecoming an officer of the Corporation as to come within Regulation 32 will always be a question of fact. What may be an unbecoming conduct in set of circumstances may not be unbecoming in another combination of circumstances? It all depends on the particular facts of each case. No cut and dried definition of unbecoming conduct can be offered.

[ S.C. Gupta v. Food Corporation of India, (1984) 2 SLJ 392 (Delhi).]

52. Sometimes 'transfer' is malafide and more dangerous than punishment

The power of transfer must be exercised honestly, bona fide am reasonably. If the power is exercised on extraneous consideration or on oblique motives or to accommodate another servant, the transter is mala fide and the affected person has the cause of action to challenge the transfer order.

DJenamani Prafulla Kumar Roy v. State of Orissa, 1981 (1) SLJ 500J

53. Sometimes 'transfer' is more dangerous than punishment

It cannot be disputed that an employer has a right to transfer his employee, who had accepted the employment fully knowing that he was liable to be transferred from one station to another for administrative reasons and in the interest of the employer. This was one of the conditions of service. Therefore, no employee can demur or cavil at an order of transfer. It is only when an order of transfer is made otherwise than in public interest or for no administrative reasons and in the circumstances amounting to punishment or with mala fide instructions that the transfer order gets exposed to challenge. The right to transter an employer is a powerful weapon in the hands of the employee. Sometimes it is more dangerous that other punishments. Recent history bears testimony to this. It may, at times, bear the mask of innocuousness. What is ostensible in a transfer order may not be the real object. Behind the mask of innocence may hide sweet revenge, a desire to get rid of an inconvenient employee, or to keep at bay an activist or a stormy petrel. When the Court is alerted, the Court has necessarily to tear the veil of deceptive innocuousness and see what exactly motivated the transfer. This court can and should, in cases where it is satisfied that the real object of transfer is not what is apparent, examine what exactly was behind the transfer.

[Puspakaran v. Coir Board, 1978 KLT 539.]

54. Transfer of Association/Union activists

When a Union Officer has been transferred a number of times during the course of one year and the transfer of others were not insisted upon and number of other employees were not transferred for years together, then the transfer is by way of victimization.

[S.K. Kutalik v. Union Bank, 1962 (S) FLR 449 (L.C.).]

 When the need for transfer is beyond question, the transfer cannot be challenged because three of the five transferred employees happened to be Trade Union Officers.

[I. C. Bhattacharya v. United Bank of India, 1953-II, L.L.) 526 (AITT Banks Dispute.]

55. When Court/ Tribunal may interfere with orders of transfer

(i)      the transfer is mala fide or arbitrary or perverse;

(ii)     it adversely alters the service conditions in terms of rank, pay emoluments;

(iii)   guidelines laid down by the department are infringed and lastly,

(iv)   if it is frequently ordered.

[Rajaram Bachhulal v. Union of India. 1992 (6) SLR 16 Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench.]

THIS IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. THERE ARE MANY MORE. YOU SHOULD LEARN HOW TO USE THEM PROPERLY. MANY CLASSES WILL BE CONDUCTED IN FUTURE. DON’T WORRY. NOW PLEASE READ AND PRESERVE