On January 3, 1991, the Cabinet Government of Karnataka took a decision to the effect that a change of the Chief Secretary should be effected.
The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms suggested for initiation of departmental action against the fourth respondent.
Such suspension was challenged by the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application No.
The respondents, namely, the State of Karnataka and the Chief Minister of Karnataka and also the said respondent No.
One such Officer was Shri J. Alexender, IAS, who was suspended while he was holding the post of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. but when Shri Alexender obtained a stay order from the Central Administrative Tribunal, the appellant, in the best interest of administration suggested that Shri Alexender should number be given the post of Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce but he should be given a posting in a Less sensitive post hut such suggestion of the appellant was number accepted by the third respondent, namely, the present Chief Minister of Government of Karnataka, Shri S. Bangarappa.
The post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was created by the State Government of Karnataka in 1989 with the designation Chairman, Hyderabad, Karnataka Development Board by order dated September 27, 1989.
The appellant put up all the files before the third respondent for appropriate orders in view of the fact that the previous Chief Minister did number take any final decision regarding the proposal to initiate disciplinary action against the fourth respondent.
Pursuant to such cabinet decision, the Chief Minister, on January 4, 1991, had taken the following three decisions and passed companysequential orders namely i declaring that the post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was equivalent in status and responsibilities to the post of Chief Secretary of the Government, ii transferring the appellant, Shri Sankaranarayanan, to the post of Secretary, High Power Committee with immediate effect and iii appointing the 4th respondent, Shri N.K. Prabhakar Rao, who was holding the post of Chief Secretary to the Government.
There was numberdelay in issuing the declaration and even assuming that there was a delay of one day in making the formal declaration of equivalence, such delay had number nullified and invalidated the decision of the Government.
Accordingly, there was numberoccasion to companytend that the declaration, required as under Rule 9 1 of IAS Pay Rules, had number been made and the order of transfer was accordingly vitiated for number companypliance with the statutory rules.
These files companytained 41st report of the Public Undertaking Committee recommending enquiry into tile imprudent decisions taken by the 4th respondent as Chairman and Managing Director of the New Government Electric Factory, Bangalore.
The Notification giving effect to the above orders of transfer was issued on January 4, 1991 but the authenticated Government order declaring the equivalent of two posts under Rule 9 of IAS Pay Rules, was issued on the next day, namely, January 5, 1991.
In any event, before giving effect to the order of transfer of the appellant, further declaration was made by the Chief Minister that the post of Secretary, High Power Committee was equivalent to the post of Chief Secretary so that in any event the appellant had numberoccasion to feel stifled.
4 was appointed to the post of Chairman, Karnataka Hyderabad Development Board.
Later on, on October 11, 1989, the said post of Chairman was re designated as Secretary, High Power Committee and ex officio Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka.
The appellant, Shri Sankaranarayanan, companytended in his application before the Central Administrative Tribunal that the appellant was in the office of Chief Secretary when Shri Veerendra Patil was the Chief Minister of Karnataka.
But the third respondent did number like his suggestion and directed the posting of Shri Madhu as Managing Director, Mysore Sales International Ltd. The third respondent also did number like to pass orders on the files companytaining the irregularities companymitted by the fourth respondent while holding high offices in the State during the period between 1983 and 1989.
78 of 1991 and an interim order of stay of the order of suspension was passed in the said proceeding, but subsequent to the filing of the instant special leave petition before this Court, the interim order of stay was vacated by the Administrative Tribunal.
So far as the other companytention made by the appellant, namely, that the transfer order is vitiated in view of the fact that the appellant was sought to be reverted to a lower post in violation of the procedure in Rule 9 l of IAS Pay Rules and Rule 4 of IAS Cadre Rules in companycerned, it has been companytended by the appellant that a Notification issued on January 5, 1991 declaring the post of Secretary, High Power Committee, as equivalent to the post of Chief Secretary, was of numberconsequence and companyld number cure the initial defect inasmuch as prior to such Notification issued on January 5, 1991 declaring equivalence of the said posts, the impugned order of transfer was sought to be effected and the respondent No.
The appellant has companytended that he was sought to be transferred with undue haste from the post of Chief Secretary to the post of Secretary, High Power Committee, although such post was inferior to the post of Chief Secretary and numberdeclaration under Rule 9 1 of IAS Pay Rules for the equivalence of the said post had been made.
Referring to the various decisions of this Court including the decision made in the case of Babulal v. M s Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and others, 19821 2 SCC p.525, the Central Administrative Tribunal indicated that a deviation from the strict procedure prescribed by law would number vitiate an action taken by the Government or public authority in the interest of public unless it companyld be shown that such an act had resulted in gross injustice to the affected party.
The Central Administrative Tribunal referred to four documents being Annexures 7, 8, 9 10 to the application made by the appellant and also the affidavits filed by the parties and accepted the companytention of the respondents that the post of the Secretary was declared equivalent to the post of Additional Chief Secretary and the post of Additional Chief Secretary was also declared equivalent to the post of Chief Secretary, and such declarations had been made ever since 1980 and the appellant was fully aware of the said position.
From the Order dated 7.2.1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Original Application No.
Accordingly, at the instance of the then Minister of Industries and Commerce an enquiry had been undertaken through Lok Ayukta.
The Report submitted after the enquiry indicated prima facie case against the 4th respondent warranting further departmental actions.
It was companytended by the appellant that since the appellant was number prepared to lies and to companypromise with the desires of the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister, namely, the respondent No.
The Central Administrative Tribunal also accepted the companytention of the respondents that in order to avoid any embarrassment and companyplication, the State Government had also made a declaration on January 4, 1991 prior to the transfer of the appellant that the post of the Secretary, High Power Committee, was equivalent to the post of Chief Secretary but the formal authenticated order declaring the said equivalence was issued next day i.e. January 5, 1991.
The said post was declared as equivalent to the post of Additional Chief Secretary on September 27,1989 when the said post was created.
The respondent No.
But the third respondent keep the files without passing any orders.
Ramaswamy, Attorney General, P.P. Muthanna for the State of Karnataka , Subramanian, M. Verrappa, Kh.
K. Venugopal, B.R.L. Iyengar, E.C. Vidyasagar, D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, L.R. Singh and Shahid Rizvi for the Appellant.
But after the Ministry headed by the then Chief Minister, Shri Veerendra Patil, was dismissed and the Presidents rule was imposed in the State, the fourth respondent withdrew his letter seeking voluntary retirement.
The former Chief Minister made enquiries about these matters and the appellant also furnished further necessary information to the then Chief Minister who referred the matter to the Personnel Department of Administrative Reforms.
The aforesaid order of transferring and posting the appellant as Secretary, High Power Committee was challenged mainly on two grounds, namely, that such order was number passed bona fide for the exigencies of the administration but the same was passed mala fide by the Chief Minister of Karnataka who became displeased with the appellant on account of his unfavourable attitude and resistance to some of the proposals of the Chief Minister in the matter of posting of senior officers of the State to different key posts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
After the impugned order of transfer, in view of some statements made by the appellant to the Press against Chief Minister, a decision was taken to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the appellant and he was placed under suspension.
The said respondent No.
By an Order dated October 17, 1980, and ex cadre post of Additional Chief Secretary was created with a declaration under Rule 9 1 of IAS Pay Rules that the status and responsibilities of the said post were equivalent to the cadre post of Chief Secretary.
To appreciate the relevant companytentions made by the appellant and the respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal and also before this Court at the hearing of the appeal, the backdrop of the events resulting in the impugned order of transfer and posting of the appellant and companysequential challenge of such order by the appellant, requires to be indicated in short.
11 of 1991.
The said post was declared equivalent to the status and responsibilities to the cadre post of Additional Chief Secretary under Rule 9 of IAS Pay Rules.
4 who was holding a very high and responsible office at the relevant time.
4 was allowed to join the post of Chief Secretary pursuant to the order of transfer of the appellant.
The appellant, Shri Sankaranarayanan, was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service Karnataka Cadre in 1957 and on May 5,1990 he was holding the post of Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka.
As such, the Central Administrative Tribunal held that there was numberoccasion to go into the legality of the posting of fourth respondent as the Chief Secretary of the State.
There was an intensive anti corruption drive against the senior bureaucrats including the 4th respondent through the instrumentality of Lok Ayukta.
Nobin Singh and S. Walia for the Respondents.
The appellant, Shri M. Sankaranarayanan, made an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, for quashing the order dated January 4, 1991 transferring and posting him as Secretary High Power Committee for development of Hyderabad, Karnataka area, Bangalore hereinafter referred to as High Power Committee as companytained in Annexure A 4 to the application made before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and for a direction to allow the applicant, Shri Sankaranarayanan, to companytinue as the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. RAY, J. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, dated February 7, 1991 passed in Original Application No.
By Notification dated May 5, 1990, he was appointed as Chief Secretary to the Karnataka Government until further orders.
It may be numbered in this companynection that Shri Prabhakar Rao is senior to Shri Sankaranarayanan as a member of the Indian Administrative Service.
4 is a very senior member of the Indian Administrative Service in the Karnataka cadre and admittedly senior to the appellant as a member of the Indian Administrative Service.
4090 of 1991.
4 purported to assume the office of the Chief Secretary on January 4, 1991.
11 of 1991.
3, became displeased with him and opposed some of his suggestions relating to the posting of senior bureaucratic officers.
But the declaration of equivalence was made on 5.1.1991 i.e. after the impugned order of transfer.
In the State of Karnataka, there was originally one post of Chief Secretary to the Government.
The respondents also companytended that the post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was equivalent to the post of Additional Chief Secretary and such declaration had been made long back and the post of Additional Chief Secretary and the post of Chief Secretary were also equivalent and inter changeable.
4 denied the allegations relating to the malice of facts and companytended that the allegations relating to the malice of facts were mischievous, malicious, scandalous and vexatious and such allegations were deliberately made to malign the respondents.
The fourth respondent made a suggestion to the Government seeking permission for voluntary retirement.
The post of Additional Chief Secretary was thereafter en cadred by Notification dated January A , 1987 with the same pay as of the post of Chief Secretary.
The posts of Chief Secretary, Secretary, High Power Committee and Additional Chief Secretary carry equal pay.
