The Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts from passing judicial orders and entertaining writ petitions against administrative decisions like transfer of an employee in the subordinate judiciary taken by the High Court concerned to ensure effective dispensation of justice to litigants.
A Bench of Justice J.M. Panchal and Justice H.L. Gokhale, in its judgment said “We cannot ignore that the integrity of the officers functioning in the administration is of utmost importance to retain the confidence of the litigants in the fairness of the judicial system. If there is any complaint in this behalf, the Chief Justice {of the High Court concerned} is expected to act on behalf of the High Court to see to it that the stream of justice does not get polluted at any level.”
Justice Gokhale writing the judgment said “We are pained to observe but we must state that the decisions on the judicial side such as the one in the present case create unnecessary difficulties for the High Court Administration.”
Quoting an earlier judgment the Bench said interference in the administrative functions of a Chief Justice through judicial order would amount to encroachment upon the authority of the Chief Justice, and would be contrary to the constitutional scheme. The Bench said “the control of the High Court over the subordinate courts under Article 235 of the Constitution includes general superintendence of the working of the subordinate courts and their staff, since their appeals against the orders of the District Judges lie with the High Court. When a complaint against the integrity of an employee is being investigated, very often he is transferred outside the concerned unit. That is desirable from the point of view of the administration as well as that of the employee.”
The Bench noted that a transfer was an incident of service, and one could not make a grievance if a transfer was made on the administrative grounds, and without attaching any stigma which was so done in the present case. “Besides, there is no right of promotion available to an employee. He has a right to be considered for promotion which has been held to be a fundamental right.”
In the present case, the respondent, R. Perachi, who was working as Sheristadar in the District Judicial Service in Tamil Nadu was transferred outside Tuthukudi district. On a writ petition, the Madras High Court held that the Chief Justice had no power to transfer the respondent and that it should have been done by the Full Court. The present appeal by the Registrar General of the High Court is directed against this judgment.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench transferred the respondent to another district, though retaining him in the same cadre with the same pay as well as his seniority. Such an action was fully justified and within the authority of the High Court. No observations were made against him, nor were any stigmas attached.
The Bench pointed out that the complaint against him was that he was dominating the administration of the District Judiciary, and the District Judge had reported that his retention in the district was undesirable. In the circumstances, the decision of the then Chief Justice to transfer him outside that district could not be faulted. The transfer was particularly necessary in view of the fact that a complaint was pending against him. The Bench set aside the impugned judgment.
