THE ORIGIN of transfers of officers, dates back to the days of the East India Company. The three Presidency towns had their own magistrates, and the realisation of taxes was the responsibility of the company’s Collectors. Over a period of time, the officers endowed with these powers developed local contacts, and began to indulge in business for personal gain.
When corruption became rampant, it was decided that no officer should be allowed to remain at one place of posting for more than a specified period of time, and for all practical purposes, this tenure was for three years. The Crown continued this policy when it took over in 1858, and Independent India follows the same to a large extent.
The Allahabad High Court Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. Under Chapter III, Rules 4 (C) (1) and (2) of the aforesaid rules, the administrative committee of the High Court shall deal with the annual postings and transfers of officers of the subordinate judiciary and also the deputation of officers of the subordinate judiciary and their withdrawal.
The recent controversy regarding the refusal to accept an order of transfer, by an officer who is under the Administrative control of the High Court is needless, and the conduct of the officer is shocking and rebellious. The High Court retains the power granted to it by the Constitution, and under the relevant provisions and rules, the concerned officer, who was on deputation, should have
been transferred after three years.
The recent controversy regarding the refusal to accept an order of transfer, by an officer who is under the Administrative control of the High Court is needless, and the conduct of the officer is shocking and rebellious. The High Court retains the power granted to it by the Constitution, and under the relevant provisions and rules, the concerned officer, who was on deputation, should have
been transferred after three years.
Since his posting as legal advisor to the Raj Bhawan commenced in 1994, he was due for transfer in 1997, but every effort to transfer him was resisted, and on annual requests from the Governor, his term was extended from time to time.
However, when this situation continued for 12 years, the High Court transferred him and appointed another officer in his place, and further, when both these steps were notified and ratified by the State Government, the concerned officer has no choice but to comply with this mandate. His refusal to do so is an act of irrational defiance.
If those who enjoy constitutional immunity initiate actions that would otherwise attract punishment under the law of Contempt of Court, the ultimate bulwark of democracy and the rule of law will be shaken. Such a situation would be dangerous indeed, and must be shunned at all cost, to prevent a swift descent into the dark depths of anarchy.
The independence, majesty and dignity of the judiciary can only be maintained by the unquestioning obedience of orders of the Court, both judicial and administrative. That is the only way to ensure that the Rule of Law will prevail.