Bombay High Court Quashes IFS Officer’s Transfer Due to Procedural Irregularities: Holds Handwritten Alterations in Civil Services Board Minutes Render Decision Invalid, Leaves Open Question of State vs. Central Rules for Future Determination

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order, which had struck down the transfer order dated 5 September 2024. The Court found that the decision-making process was flawed, citing handwritten alterations in the Civil Services Board (CSB) minutes and an unexplained absence of signatures from key officials.

The Court, however, did not conclusively decide whether the transfer of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers should be governed by the Central IFS (Cadre) Rules, 1966, or the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (State Act). It left this issue open for future determination.

Facts of the Case:

• The Petitioner challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order dated 23 October 2024, which set aside a Maharashtra Government transfer order.
• The transfer order (dated 5 September 2024) had transferred the Petitioner from Nandurbar to Nashik while another officer (Respondent No. 5) was transferred from Nashik to Roha.
• The tribunal struck down the transfer, citing procedural irregularities in the Civil Services Board’s approval process.
• The Petitioner argued that IFS transfers are governed by the Central Rules under the All India Services Act, 1951, and not the State Act.
• The State invoked the State Act while issuing the transfer order, leading to a conflict of laws.
• The Tribunal found that the Civil Services Board’s meeting minutes contained unexplained handwritten insertions and that the transfer was made without the required approvals.

Issues Before the Court:

1. Whether the transfer of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers should be governed by the Central IFS (Cadre) Rules, 1966, or the Maharashtra State Act, 2005?
2. Whether the transfer decision was procedurally valid, considering the irregularities in the Civil Services Board’s decision-making process?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. State Act Does Not Apply to IFS Officers:
   • The IFS (Cadre) Rules, 1966, made under the All India Services Act, 1951, govern IFS officers.
   • The Tribunal erred in applying the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers Act, 2005, as it does not override the central laws applicable to IFS officers.
2. Transfer Was Properly Approved by the Civil Services Board:
   • The Civil Services Board (CSB), responsible for IFS transfers, had recommended the transfer.
   • The Chief Minister, as the competent authority, had discretion to approve transfers even if the Board did not explicitly recommend them.
3. Tribunal Misinterpreted the Tenure Rules:
   • The IFS (Cadre) Rules, 1966, do not specify a maximum tenure—only a minimum tenure of two years.
   • The Tribunal wrongly inferred that an officer must complete three years before being eligible for transfer.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Transfer Order Cited the State Act, Making it Applicable:
   • The transfer order explicitly referenced the Maharashtra State Act.
   • Since the State followed its own law, the Tribunal was correct in applying it.
2. Civil Services Board Did Not Properly Approve the Transfer:
   • The handwritten alterations in the Board’s minutes indicate that the officer’s name was inserted later.
   • The State failed to provide any justification for the officer’s transfer, violating legal requirements.
3. Chief Minister Cannot Override the Board’s Recommendations Without Justification:
   • If the Chief Minister disagreed with the Board, he was required to record reasons in writing, which was not done.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Central Provisions vs. State Act:
   • The All India Services Act, 1951, gives exclusive power to the Central Government to regulate recruitment and service conditions of IFS officers.
   • The Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966, and the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Amendment Rules, 2014, state that an officer must serve at least two years before transfer.
   • The Maharashtra State Act, 2005, prescribes a three-year tenure.
   • Conflict: The Tribunal applied the State Act, while the Petitioner argued that Central Rules override State laws for All India Services officers.
2. Importance of Civil Services Board (CSB):
   • Both State and Central provisions mandate a Civil Services Board to recommend transfers.
   • Under Rule 7(5) of the IFS (Cadre) Rules, 2014, the competent authority may override the Board’s recommendations, but must record reasons.
3. Relevant Supreme Court Precedents:
   • T.S.R. Subramanian v. Union of India (2013) – Supreme Court ruled that civil servants must have a fixed tenure and transfers should follow a structured decision-making process.
   • Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor (1936) – Held that when a law prescribes a specific procedure, any deviation is illegal.
   • Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Abhilash Lal (2020) – Flawed decision-making processes render decisions unlawful.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Serious Procedural Flaws in the Civil Services Board’s Decision:
   • The CSB minutes contained handwritten additions that were not explained.
   • Key officials did not sign the CSB minutes, raising doubts about their authenticity.
   • The officer’s name was not originally in the list of officers recommended for transfer.
   • The State failed to explain these anomalies.
2. Competent Authority Must Record Reasons for Overruling the Board:
   • If the Chief Minister overruled the Board’s recommendations, he was required to provide written justification.
   • No such reasons were recorded.
3. Tribunal’s Findings Were Not Perverse:
   • The High Court agreed that the Tribunal had validly found flaws in the process.
   • The absence of an affidavit from the government explaining the handwritten changes was a major concern.
4. State Act vs. Central Rules – Left Open for Future Cases:
   • The Court refused to conclusively determine whether the Maharashtra State Act or Central IFS Rules should apply.
   • It held that this issue could be decided in a future case.

Conclusion:

• The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal’s decision to quash the transfer order.
• It did not decide whether the State Act or Central Rules apply, leaving the matter open for future determination.
• The transfer order was set aside due to flaws in the decision-making process, including the handwritten alterations in the Civil Services Board’s minutes.

Implications of the Judgment:

1. Ensuring Transparent Decision-Making:
   • Government officials must follow proper procedures in transfer decisions.
   • Any alterations in official records must be explained and justified.
2. Strengthening the Role of Civil Services Board:
   • Transfers should only be made based on CSB recommendations.
   • If the government overrides CSB decisions, reasons must be recorded.
3. Impact on IFS Transfer Policy:
   • The uncertainty over whether State or Central rules apply remains unresolved.
   • Future cases may clarify whether the Maharashtra State Act applies to IFS officers.

Also Read – Supreme Court Acquits Man in Dowry Death Case: “Trial Courts Must Avoid Moral Convictions and Ensure Prosecution Proves Cruelty Soon Before Death” – Holds That Contradictory Witness Statements and Lack of Evidence Cannot Justify Conviction Under Section 304-B IPC