The central government’s counsel stated that the petitioner’s performance was unsatisfactory on the basis of her annual confidential reportsThe Delhi High Court has stayed the transfer of a woman lieutenant colonel from Bathinda in Punjab to Ranikhet in Uttarakhand following her differences with her commanding officer (CO), also a woman officer.Lt Colonel Manali Srivastava had moved the high court, aggrieved by the fact that in less than 18 months from the time when she was posted in Bathinda along with her spouse, she was transferred to Ranikhet. She had alleged in the writ petition that the transfer is mala fide at the instance of her immediate superiors, her commanding officer and another officer.The high court, in its order dated October 28, noted that the regulations for Spouse Coordinated Posting (SCP) stipulate that curtailment of the tenure of a spouse coordinated posting below 18 months is permissible only in the case of unavoidable organisational constraints.“The order of transfer of the petitioner to Ranikhet does not refer to any such unavoidable organisational constraints. In fact, the order is completely non-speaking and merely transfers the petitioner even before the tenure of 18 months is over,” the bench noted.The central government’s standing counsel pointed out that there were grounds that permitted the transfer of an officer who is on SCP in case of unsatisfactory performance. He placed reliance on certain communications addressed to the petitioner by her superior officer, alleging that her performance was unsatisfactory.The high court bench noted that in as much as the claim of the petitioner is specifically that her superior officer harboured mala fides against her, it is not certain as to the extent to which these communications can be the basis to transfer the petitioner. It further noted that even otherwise, the transfer of an officer who is on SCP before the tenure expires is envisaged in clause 4(e) of the policy only in the case of unsatisfactory performance “based upon case taken up by the Unit/Fmn”.The central government’s counsel stated that the petitioner’s performance was unsatisfactory on the basis of her annual confidential reports. “If this is to be treated as a valid explanation, the words ‘based upon case taken up by the Unit /Fmn’ would be reduced to a superfluity. We, therefore, cannot atleast prima facie accept the explanation. We, in fact, are of the opinion that it would have been in the fitness of things for the respondents to come forth and graciously allow the petitioner to complete her tenure in Bathinda or atleast the period of 18 months. The respondents, however, are not willing to make any such statement,” the bench noted.Story continues below this adThe court also observed that during the course of hearing, it was also submitted that owing to the relations between the petitioner and her commanding officer, the continuation of the petitioner in Bathinda would be impracticable.“This further, seems to indicate that the essential difficulty is with respect to the relationship between the petitioner and her Commanding Officer, and not anything else,” the court said.The bench said the respondents are at liberty to place on record the material which, according to them, could satisfy the court that the transfer of the petitioner from Bathinda to Ranikhet was bona fide and in accordance with the applicable instructions.© The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:delhi high court