ONLY STATE GOVT CAN DECIDE THE PLACE OF POSTING OF GOVT SERVANT:SC

The Supreme Court has held that a court cannot examine the integrity and service records of an employee while examining a transfer order passed by an employer.

A bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and R M Lodha, while dismissing the appeal of one sub-registrar, who was under transfer from Ghaziabad to Hapur, noted that it is the exclusive prerogative of the state government or Inspector General of Registration to decide his place of posting.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Lodha in the 9-page judgment pulled up the Allahabad High Court and noted, ‘We are pained to observe that the High Court seriously erred in deciding as to whether respondent no 5 was a competent person to be posted at Ghaziabad VI as the sub-registrar.’ ‘That exercise undertaken by the High Court did not fall within its domain and was rather uncalled for,’ added Justice Lodha.

‘We are unable to approve the direction issued to the state government and IG of Registration to transfer a competent officer at Ghaziabad VI as sub-registrar after holding that respondent no 5 (Rajendra Singh) cannot be said to be an officer having a better conduct and integrity in comparison to the petitioner (Karvendra Singh) justifying his posting at Ghaziabad VI,’ he said.

‘The High Court entered into an arena which did not belong to it and thereby commited a serious error of law. The only question required to be seen was whether transfer of respondent no 5 was actuated with mala fides or otherwise in violation of statutory rules,’ he observed.

‘The transfer of respondent no 5 was not found to suffer from any of these vices. The High Court went into the competence and suitability of respondent no 5 for such posting.

‘It is here that the High Court fell into a grave error. The impugned order of the High Court cast stigma in the service of respondent no 5 which may also add prejudicial to his interest in the pending appeal against the adverse remarks,’ he stated.

The controversy arose when Rajendra Singh was transferred on July 31, 2007 from Hapur to Ghaziabad as sub-registrar and the petitioner Karvendra Singh was shifted to Hapur II as sub-registrar.

The High Court, while upholding the transfer of Karvendra Singh, quashed the transfer of Rajendra Singh on the ground that the officer was a man of doubtful integrity as vigilance inquiry was ordered against him and he also had an adverse entry in his service record which was made in 2005.

The plea of Rajendra Singh that he has been a given clean chit by the vigilance department and his appeal against adverse entry is pending disposal.

The plea of Karvendra Singh that he had been transferred within a month of his posting on the basis of complaint of one Radhey Lal, Sanyojak Dalit Morcha Sangharsh Samiti, Lucknow and transfer order was arbitrary, stigmatic and suffered from non-application of mind.

The apex court in its judgment also noted that ‘a government servant has no vested rights to remain posted at a place of his choice, nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other.

‘He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. No government can function if the government servant once appointed or posted at a particular place or position, continues in such place or position as long as he desires.

‘It is for the state government or IG of Registration to decide about his place of posting.’ ‘As to at what place respondent no 5 should be posted is an exclusive prerogative of the state government,’ Justice Lodha stated.

POTA COURT AWARDS DEATH TO ’03 MUMBAI BOMBERS

A SPECIAL Pota (Prevention of Terrorist Activities) court has awarded death sentence to the three accused held guilty for the 2003 blasts that killed over 50 people.

Six years after two blasts at the iconic Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar, three Lashkar-e-Toiba members — Mohammed Hanif Sayeed (46), his wife Fahmida (43) and Ashrat Ansari (32) — were sentenced to death. This is for the first time that a couple has been convicted by a Pota court for carrying out blasts.

The special court Judge P R Puranik observed it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that they had committed heinous acts resulting in numerous deaths. The court agreed with special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam that this was a rarest of the rare case where capital punishment was justified.

The trio was held guilty of planting two bombs in taxis that exploded at the Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar on August 25, 2003, claiming 52 lives and injuring 244. They had also planted a bomb on July 28, 2003, in a municipal bus in suburban Ghatkopar which killed two persons. The three were given death penalty under section 3(2) of Pota, and IPC sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder) and 120(b) (conspiracy).

Soon after the verdict was pronounced, police whisked away Sayeed, Fahmida and Ansari to different jails. Fahmida broke down outside the court while her husband did not react and stood calm by her side. Ashrat said: “Is andhe kanoon se kya insaaf milega (what justice can you get when the law is blind).”

Commenting on the verdict, Mr Nikam said: “We are happy that justice has been delivered. This would send a strong message to terrorists that they would get such punishment if they indulged in barbarous acts.” “Initially they had planted a bomb in a bus but since few people were killed, they decided to use powerful bombs on the instructions of Laskhar-e-Toiba,” Mr Nikam said.

They have also been sentenced to varying prison terms under the provisions of Explosives Substances Act, Explosives Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Mr Nikam said Fahmida had played a major role in these bomb blasts. She had planted a bomb in a bus on July 28, 2003, along with her husband’s friend Ashrat and on August 25, 2003, she and her husband Hanif planted bombs in taxis at the Gateway of India.

“Fahmida had actively participated in the process of selection and approval of location of targets. Though Fahmida was a woman she was equally cruel as other accused in the execution of conspiracy,” Mr Nikam said.

The prosecutor said Hanif was an autorickshaw driver in Mumbai and had gone to Dubai to attend a meeting during which a conspiracy was hatched by LeT to carry out the blasts. Ashrat had planted bomb in another taxi which exploded in Zaveri Bazaar.

Mr Nikam said Zaveri Bazaar in south Mumbai was chosen since the trio wanted to target the famous Mumbadevi temple nearby. The historic Gateway of India was also chosen since they wanted to target the nearby Hotel Taj where many foreign tourists stay. “The aim of LeT was to destabilise India with these blasts,” the special public prosecutor said.

Along with the couple Hanif and Fahmida, their 16-year-old daughter was also arrested for her alleged involvement in the blasts. However, she was discharged since the prosecution chose not to investigate the charges against her as she was a minor. Two other accused, Mohammed Ansari Ladoowala and Mohammed Hasan Batterywala, were also discharged from the case by the Pota court after the Supreme Court upheld a Pota review committee report that said there was no case against the duo.

DLF CONSORTIUM BAGS HARYANA METRO DEAL

The country's largest real estate player, DLF, has announced a fully-privately financed metro rail project for its townships in Gurgaon with a project cost of Rs 900 crore.

"The government of Haryana has awarded the construction of the metro system in Gurgaon. A consortium of DLF and IL&FS has bagged the contract. The process to form a special purpose vehicle is on to construct and operate the system," DLF said.

The project called 'DLF MetroRail, Gurgaon' has been bagged on concession by the consortium for a period of 99 years to build and operate the metro sytem, it added. The consortium, where DLF would have a 26% stake while IL&FS would hold the rest, would invest invest Rs 900 crore in developing the project.

According to a DLF spokesperson, the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) would raise Rs 700 crore within the next 6 months. The mode of raising would, however, be decided in due course of time.