Service Law-Transfer from a sensitive and significant Post-Tansfer alleged to be prejudicial to public interest Procedure of Evidence required.

C Service Law-Transfer-Judicial Review-Scope of Judicial interference in case of mala fides-When justified.

Indian Police Service-Tenure Rule 8 read with Rule I-Infraction of Ordinarily a tenure of 5 years in Central Police Organisation-Total period of 5 years-May be in more than one Central Police Organisation.

Interpretation of Statutes-Harmonious Construction Rule 8 read with Rule 1 of Tenure Rules Ordinary tenure on deputation of 5 years of IPS Officer May not be in one Central Police Organisation but in all-Total 5 years-tenure.

Service Law Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Sections 14 & 22-Central Administrative Tribunal Rejection of allegation of mala fides without respondents' reply-Improper.

The appellant, N.K. singh an I.P.S. Officer of 1961 cadre, was serving as I.G., CID in Orissa, when he was placed on deputation to the Ministry F of Home Affairs for five years from where on 12.02.90 he was appointed Joint Director, C.BI. When the appellant was in charge of a special investigation group conducting some sensitive investigation regarding the St. Kitts' affairs, he was transferred from the post of Joint Director, C.B.I. to an equivalent post of L.G.P. in BSF. Aggrieved by the transfer, the appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The appellant challenged his transfer on the grounds of: (1) mala fides attributed to the then Prime Minister, Sh. Chandrashekhar; (2) being in contravention of the Tenure Rules regulating the period of deputation in the Central Police Organisation; (3) being prejudicial to public interest Has made for the ulterior purpose of scuttling the sensititve investigation of which the appellant was in charge in the C.B.Ι.

The respondents did not dispute the caliber and high reputation of the appellant but strongly refuted the allegation of mala fides and the alleged ulterior motives. They contended that the transfer was due to exigencies of administration, was a necessary incident of the appellant's service and that the reasons for the same were not judicially reviewable.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court