State denies malafides in Mendonca case

December 19: The state government today reiterated before the Bombay High Court that it had no ulterior motive in transfering Director-Gen...

December 19: The state government today reiterated before the Bombay High Court that it had no ulterior motive in transfering Director-General (Anti-Corruption Bureau) R H Mendonca on November 21, and had merely complied with the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order to reinstate S K Iyengar. A divison bench of Justice A P Shah and Justice P V Kakade after hearing the arguments said it will deliver its verdict tomorrrow.

Earlier, senior counsel for the state T Andhyarujina said, “Much cloud is created over the right of the government to transfer any officer. This is not the matter of hierarcy, of junior or senior as is made out. We are concerned with four posts namely – director general (state), DG (Anti-Corruption Bureau), Commandant (Home Guard) and Managing Director (Police Housing and Welfare). They rank equally and are no way inferior to each other.”

Andhyarujina said the government has the discretion on appointments and there have been instances when juniors have been appointed. “This gentleman is enamoured of a particular position. When he was commissioner of police, he was quite contented even though his junior M N Singh was made DG (ACB). Why did he not object? When he has now been shifted to MD (Police Housing and Welfare), which according to him is inferior, he comes and says he must get a particular post. Also, it is absurd to say that he was not aware of the application in the CAT challenging Singh’s appointment. As a leading officer, he should have been aware of it. An officer who lies and then quickly takes a chance has no right to come here.”

Story continues below this ad

With regard to the quick implemention of the CAT’s order, Andhyarujina said, “When the tribunal gives a decision, we ought to implement it. This time we acted promptly. Even if we do not, we are accused similarly. Where do we stand?” Asked why the state did not challenge the CAT order, Andhyarujina replied that it is not bound to challenge every case.”

He added: “Even if we were wrong in implementing CAT’s order, independently we now think he is the proper person for the post of MD (Housing and Welfare). This was decided post-petition. If he has any grievance, he should challenge it.”

Judge Shah said the fundamental question in public interest is that is it correct that such an important department should have such frequent transfers. Andhyarujina replied, “There remains much to be said in the matter as there are many cases pending and a lot to be done. The government has to consider this. There is no doubt both Mendonca and Iyengar are excellent officers but every head should strive to bring results. However, Mendonca should have approached CAT and not the high court levelling malafides against the state.”

Iyenger’s counsel K K Singhvi said CAT had set aside the state government’s order not becuase it was about a lower or higher post but because it was “arbitrary” and it objected to abrupt postings. “It is Mendonca’s case that the state wanted to transfer him and he seized this opportuntiy.”

Story continues below this ad

He said said Mendonca could have approached CAT for a review of its order or file a fresh application before it. Mendonca’s counsel V R Manohar countered saying that the high court had the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere because the state government had not disclosed the true facts to CAT.