A

B

N.K. SINGH

v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

AUGUST 25, 1994

[J.S. VERMA AND K.,RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Service law-Transfer from/a sensitive and significant PosrTansfer

alleged to be prejudicial to public interest-Procedure of-Evidence required.

C Service law-Transfe,-Judicial Review-Scope of-Jud1cial inter-

ference in case of ma/a fides:-When justified.

D

Indian Police Service-Tenure Rule 8 read with Rule I-Infraction

of-Ordinarily a tenure of 5 years in Central Police Organisatio~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 Ru/es:-Ordinary tenure on deputation of 5 years of JPS

Officer-May not be in one Central Police Organisation but in all-Total 5

years· tenure.

E Service law-Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985--Sections 14 &

22--Central Administrative Tribunal-Rejection of a/legation of ma/a 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 live years from where on 12.02.90 he was appointed

Joint Director, C.BI. When th'e appellant was in charge of a special

investigation group conducting !lome sensitive investigation regarding the

St. Kitts' affairs, he was transferred from the post of Joint Director, C.B.I.

to

an equivalent post of I.G.P. in

BSF. Aggrieved by the transfer, the

G appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The a1~pellant challenged bis transfer on the grounds of: (1) ma/a

fides

attributed to the then

Prim•' Minister, Sh. Cbandrashekhar; (2) being

In contravention of the Tenure Rules regulating the period of deputation

in the Centrd Police Organisation; (3) being prejudicial to public interest

H as made for the ulterior purpose of scuttling the sensititve investigation

772

N.K. SINGH v. U.0.1. 773

of which the appellant was in charge in the C.B.I.

The respondents did not dispute the caliber and high reputation of

the appellant but strongly refuted the allegation of ma/a fides and the

alleged ulterior motives. They contended

that the transfer

'"IS due to

exigencies of administration, "as a necessary incident of the appellant's

service and that the reasons for the same were not judicially reviewable.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD :

l.l. The element of prejudice

lo public interest was only

involved in transfers from sensitive and important public offices and not

in all. Mere suspicion of prejudice was not enough. Strong unimpeachable

evidence was needed to prove definite substanti_al prejudice to public

interest unless justified on the ground of public interest and exigencies of

administration. (776-F,

G)

A

B

c

1.2. It needed to be first pleaded and proved that the replacement was D

by a person not suitable for the important post and the transfer was

avoidable. There was no allegation

that the successor in the

C.B.I. was a

pliable officer

or in any way inferior to the appellant or unsuitable for

discharging the duties of the sensitive office.

Proceeding on the assumption

that the appellant's successor was also a capable. competent and upright

officer the appellant's transfer was not prejudicial to public interest. E

(778-B, D, G)

2.1. A harmonious construction of the provisions of Rule 8 read with

Rule 1 of the Tenure Rules indicated

that the ordinary tenure on deputation

of

five years of

IPS officers appointed to the posts of Inspector General of

Police from their respective cadres in the Central Police Organisations had F

to be not neccessarily in any one Central Police Organisation but in all, in

one

or more Central

Police Organisations to which they were posted.

(780-CJ

2.2. CBI and BSF both being Central Police Organisations there had

been full compliance of the Tenure Rules if the appellant had a total tenure G

of at least five years in the Central Police Organisations to which be was

posted during the period of deputation.

That need not have been be iu the

CBI alone.

[780-E, F)

3. There

had been no adverse effect of the transfer on the appellant's

service career. The

transfer had been on an equivalent post and two H

774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A promotions had been given the.reafter. There had been a need for a

competent IPS Officer in the BSF as a result of the promotion of the senior

IGP of BSF. These facts reflected in the relevant record negated the plea

of

ma/a fides. The transfer could not be held to have been made by the then

·

Prime Minisler to wreak his vengeance upon the appellant. That impres·

B

sion of the appellant, even if honestly held, was not supported by any

acceptable material.

(781-H, 782-A, BJ

Regina v. Commissioner of

Police of the Metropolis, (1968] 2 QB 118,

distinguished!.

C 4. Allegations of ma/a fides having been made by the appellant on

affidavit, the Tribunal should

not. have rejected them without even

requir·

ing a counter affidavit to rebut them. The Tribunal's perception that the

allegations did not constitute the plea of

mala fides had been obviously

incorrect. The Tribunal also

had not appreciated the true extent of

scrutiny into the matter

and the grounds on which a transfer was judicially

D

re'1ewable. (782-E, Fl

E

F

CIVIL APPELLATE

JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4656 of

1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.91 of the Central Ad­

ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 733 of 1991.

Ram Je.thmalani, Ms Lata Krishnamurthi, and Abani Kumar Sahu

for the Appeallant.

Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, A.D.N. Rao, l'. Par­

meshwaran, Ms. Anil Katiyar and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondent In

No. l & 4:

G.L. Sanghi and Dr. B.S. Chauhan for the Respondent in No. 2 ..

G In-p~rson in Respondent in No. 3.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VERMA,

J. The appellant N.K.

Singh belongs to the Indian Police

Service and i• an officer of the 1961 batch allocated to the State cadre of

H Orissa. The appellant was posted as I.G., C.I.D. in Orissa when he was

'

N.K. SINGHv. U.0.1. [VERMA.'J.] 775

brought on deputation to an equivalant post of Joint Director in the A

Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) in February 1990. By a notification

dated

7.2.1990

issued by the Government of Orissa, the services of the

appellant were placed on deputation to the Ministry of Home Affairs in

the Government of India for a period of

five years and by notification dated

26.2.1990 issued by the Government of India he was appointed Joint B

Director in the

C.B.I. until further orders w.e.f. 12.2.1990. The appellant

was working in this capacity in the C.B.I. and was lncharge of a Special

Investigation Group conducting some sensitive investigations.

By an order

dated

21.3.1991 which was served on the appellant on 26.3.1991, the

appellant

was transferred from the post of Joint Director,

C.B.I. to the C

Border Security Force (B.S.F.) in an equivalent post of l.G.P. Aggrieved

by his tranofer from .C.B.I. to B.S.F., the appellant filed an application

before the Central Administrative Tribunal on

25.3.1991 challenging his

transfer

on certain grounds. The Tribunal has dismissed that application,

by the impugned order dated 5.4.1991. Hence this appeal by special leave. D

There is no dispute that the impugned transfer from

C.B.I. to B.S.F.,

both of

which are Central

Police Organisations, has no adverse conse­

quence

on the service career and prospects of the appellant and the

transfer of the appellant to B.S.F.

was in an equivalent post of the rank of

I.G.P. It has also been fairly stated by learned counsel for the appellant E

that the appellant has not suffered any setback

in

his service career by this

transfer inasmuch

as he was

·promoted in due course in the B.S.F. in the

year

1992 to the rank of Additional Director General of

Police and then

promoted further to the rank of Director General in the Bureau of Police

Research and Development Branch of the B.S.F. in January 1994. The real F

grievance of the appellant ventilated by his learned councel is that the

appellant has been Ceased out of the sensitive post in the C.B.I. as

Incharge of the Special Investigation Group investigating into the St. Kitts

affair wherein there are allegations

of forgery of some documents and of

involvement

in that forgery of some persons having political patronage, G

because of his impeccable reputation as an officer beyond approach.

On

this basis the transfer of the appellant from C.B.I. to B.S.F. is challenged

on the groud of

malafides attributed mainly to the then

Prime Minister of

India, respondent No.

2,

Shri Chandrasekhar. It is further urged that the

appellant's transfer from the C.B.I. is prejudicial to public interest since it H

776 •

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A is with a view to scuttle the s<:nsitive investigation. The incidental reference

to respondent

No. 3. Dr. Subramanyam

Swami, the then Union Law

Minister

is not

m•terial and, therefore, does not merit any further refer­

ence. It must be placed on reco:rd that on behalf of the respondents, the

calibre and high reputation of the appellant were not disputed but the

B allegation of malafides was strongly refuted as also the alleged ulterior

motive for the transfer while contending that the transfer of the appellant

from C.B.I.

to B.S.F. was due to exigencies of administration and not for

the purpose of removing the appellant from the post

he held in the

C.B.I.

Respondent No. 2 while vehemently denying the allegation of malafides has

c

asserted that the appellant's trani.fer was a necessary incident of his service

and the reasons in the instant case are not judicially reviewable.

The Central Administrative Tribunal has rejected the appellant's

application without even requiring counter affidavits to be filed by the

respondents. This indeed was an unusual course to adopt when the appel-

D !ant had alleged malafides on the. basis of certain facts. For this reason, in

this appeal, the parties were required to

file their affidavits and both sides

were heard at length with

reference to the averments made in their

affidavits.

E

F

There are two aspects of transfer of a public servant holding a

sensitive and important post.

One: aspect relates to the private rights of the

public servant as an individual pertaining . only to his service career. The

other

is concerned with prejudice to public interest irrespective of the

individual interest. The element of prejudice to public interest can

be. ·

involved only in transfers from sensitive and important public offices and .

not in all transfers. Mere suspicion or likelihood of some prejudice to

public interest

is not enough

arid there must be strong unimpeachable

evidence to prove definite substantial prejudice to public interest to make

it a vitiating factor in an appropriate case unless it

is justified on the ground

of larger public interest and exigencies of administration.

Such cases would

G be rare and this factor as a vitiating element must be accepted with great

caution and circumspection.

It the instant case,

Shri J ethmalani has attempted to inteprate the

two aspects to widen the range of attack, even though the case pleaded is

J:I only of ma/a fides. However, we have considered both the aspects since

N.K. SINGH v. U.0.1. [VERMA,J.] 777

certain facts pleaded to urge malafides may relate to public interest as well. Ai

Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned counsel for the appellant did not

dispute that the scope of judicial review

in matters of transfer of a

govern­

ment servant to an equivalent post without any adverse consequence on

the service or career prospects

is very limited being confined only to the

grounds of

malafides and violation of any specific provision or guideline

regulating such transfers amounting to

arbitrarine'5. In reply, the learned

Additional Solicitor General and the learned counsel for respondent No.

2 did not dispute the above principle, but they urged that

no such ground

is made but; and there is no foundation to indicate any prejudice to public

interest.

In substance, the appellant's case, as projected by

Shri Jethmalani,

combining the

two aspects is that the then

Prime Minister, respondent No.

B

c

2, Shri Chandrasekhar was annoyed with the appellant because he felt

embarrassed

by the investigation made by the appellant of his compaint of D

phone tapping;

Shri Chandrasekhar was also interested in the so-called

Godman Nek Chand Ghandhi alias Chandraswarni against whom allegation

of forgery of some documents relating to the St. Kitts' affair was being

investigated

by the appellant; and therefore, to avoid any further

embar­

rassment to Chandraswami as well as to wreak vengeance for the embar­

rassment in the phone tapping incident caused to him by the appeUant, he

had directed the transfer of the appellant from the C.B.I. to the B.S.F.

There is no allegation that the appellant was replaced in this investigation ..

by a pliable or less competent officer who may have facilitated the aUeged

ulterior purpose.

E

F

Shri J ethmalani submits that the present case falls within the narrow

scope of judicial review permitted in such cases since the transfer

of the

appeUant

was prejudicial to public interest being made for the ulterior

purpose of scuttling the sensitive investigation of which the appeUant

was

incharge in the

C.B.I. It is urged that promotion of public interest must G

govern the exercise of all public power and its negation vitiates the action

taken. This is the gravamen of the charge levelled against the then Prime

Minister, Shri Chandrasekhar (respondent No. 2) aod constitutes the sub­

stance of the plea of malafides. The question is, whether the ground is

made out. H

778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A fransfer of a public servant from a significant post can be prejudicial

to public interest only if the transfer was avoidable and the successor is not

suitable for the post. Suitability is a matter for objective assessment by the

hierarchial superiors in administration. To introduce and rely

on the ele­

ment of prejudice to public

interest as a vitiating factor of the transfer of

B a public servant, it must be first pleaded and proved that the replacement

was by a person not suitable for the important post and the transfer was

avoidable. Unless this is pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further

inquiry into this aspect

is necessary and

it5 absence is sufficient to exclude

this factor from consideration as a •itiation element in the impugned

C transfer. Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset.

It

is significant that there is no allegation by the appellant that his

successor in the C.B.I. was a pliable officer or that he was in any manner

inferior to the appellant or unsuitable for discharging the duties of the

sensitive

office in the

C.B.I. In fact there is not even a mention made at

D any stage of the appellant's successor in the C.B.I. or his credentials or

even a whisper against him of

any kind. He has neither been named nor

impleaded

as a party. It is, therefore, not a case where the inferior quality

of the successor-in-office would

by itself support the appellant's contention

that the object of transfer

was to scuttle the sensitive investigation which

E was being conducted by the

C.B.l. under the supervision of the appellant.

F

Even though we have looked into the particulars relating to the progress

of that investigation

by the

C.B.I. after the appellant's transfer only for the

purpose of satisfying ourselves

tha.t public interest.has not been jeopard­

ised, yet the facts of the present

case and the context of absence of any

allegation of the unsuitability of the successor-in-office, are sufficient to

require no further consideration of this aspect in the present context. In

the present case,

we must proceed on the assumption that the appellant's

successor

in the

C.B.I. was also a capable, competent and upright officer

like him

and, therefore, the appe1lant's transfer from the C.B.l. to the B.S.F. was not. prejudicial to public interest. There is nothing else in the

G present casewhich requires any further examination of the public element

for testing the legality of the impugned transfer.

The remaining scrutiny must now be confined to the private rights

of

the appellant based on the pleas of malafides and contravention of the

H Tenure Rules regulating the period of deputation in the Central

Police

N.K. SINGH V. u.o.r. [VERMA, J.] 779

Organisations. A

Shri Jethmalani has contended that according to the Tenure Rules,

the appellant

was entitled to continue on deputation in a Central

Police

Organisation ordinarily for a period of five years; . and he having been

posted on deputation

in the

C.B.I. because of his background of experience B

in the investigative field, he should have been continued in the C.B.I. for

the entire period of

five years.

On this basis, the appellant claims that his

transfer,'with the background of annoyance of the then Prime Minister Shri

Chandreasekhar, was at least against the spirit of the Tenure Rules and

supports the allegation of

malafides.

In the detailed counter-affidavit filed by

Shri Chandrasekhar, respon­

dent No. 2, there is a categorical denial of the allegations made against

him. He has asserted that even though he was unhappy with the manner in

which the appellant handled the investigation into

his complaint of tapping

c

of his telephone but that had nothing to do with his transfer from the

C.B.I. D

to the B.S.F. which was made in the ordinary course and according to the

exigencies of administration.

It is also contended that

the appellants trans-

fer

was an ordinary incident of his service which had no adverse effect on

his service career. The appellant was transferred to the

B.S.F. in an

equivalent post and since then he has also earned

two promotions in the E B.S.F .. which came to him in dne course. It is further urged that the Tenure

Rules which provide ordinarily a tenure

of five years on deputation in the

Central

Police Organisations do not contemplilte the entire period of five

years in one Central Police Organisation alone and, therefore, the B.S.F.

also being a Central Police Organisation, there was no infraction even of F

the Tenure Rules.

As for the effect of the transfer personally on the appellant, it is

undisputed that there was no adverse effect thereof on the appellant's

service career. The transfer

of the appellant from the

C.B.I. to the B.S.F.

was on an equivalent post and the appellant was given two promotions G

thereafter in due course as and when the promotions became due to him.

There was also no infraction of any rules or professed gnidelines as a result

of the appellant's transfer from the C.B.I. to the B.S.F.

Rule 8 of the Tenure Rules for l.P.S. Officers to which reference has H

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A been made by Shri Jethmalani pro;ides that JPS Officers appointed to the

posts of Jnspeclor General of Police directly from their respective cadres

will have a tenure of five years. This has to be read along with Rule 1

thereof which _says that JPS officers with a minimum service of seven years

would ordinarilv be considered for induction

in the Central

Police Or-

B ganisations and in the event of their not being found suitable they would

be repatriated

to their

State cadres. A harmonious construction of the

prmisions in these rules indicates that the ordinary tenure on deputation

of

five years of

IPS officers appointed to the posts of Inspector General of

Police from their respective cadres in the Central Police Organisations to

C which they are posted has to be not necessarily in any one Central Police

Organisations but in nli, in one or more Central Police Organisations to

which they are posted.

It is, therefore, clear that the officers found suitable

for being continued on deputation

in the Central

Police Organisations have

an ordinary tenure

of five years not necessarily in one Central

Police

Organisation but in all, in the Central Police Organisations to which they

D are posted. These may be more than one also. The emphasis is on the total

period of deputation in Central Police Organisations being five years and

not on the entfre deputation continuing only in one Central Police Or­

ganisation.

E

F

G

H

Admittedly,

C.B.I. and B.S.F. are both Central Police Organisations

and, therefore, there

is full compliance of the Tenure Rules if the appellant

has a total tenure of at least

five years in the Central

Police Orgamsations

to which he is posted during the period of deputation. This need not be in

the C.B.I. alone. Obviously, this is the manner in which the Tenure Rules

have been construed and understood in their application to the officers on

deputation. A letter -MHA U.O. No. 1-21021/21/90-Pers. JII -dated

14.6.1991

of the Ministry of Home Affairs contained in the record

produced by the learned Additional Solicitor General at the hearing before

us relating to the appellant, reads at under

:-'Subject : Appointment of Shri N:K. Singh, JPS (Ori:61) as IG in

BSF.

DG BSF may please refer to their u.o. No. 11/5028/91-Pers/BSF

j

"

N.K. SINGHv. U.0.1. [VERMA J.J 781

dated 29.5.91 on the above subject.

Shri N.K. Singh, JPS came on central deputation as Joint

Dircctro, CBI

w.e.f. 12.2.90 and transferred to B.S.F. as IG w.e.f.

2.4.91. As such, his normal term of 5 years will expire on 31.5.1995."

A

There is thus no infraction of the Tenure Rules in any manner by the B

transfer of the appellant from the

C.B.I. to the B.S.F.

From the relevant record produced

by the learned Additional

Solicitor General, it

is also clear that the proposal for transfer of the

appellant

from the

C.B.I. to the B.S.F. as Inspector General of Police C

emanated in the ordinary course from the Ministry of Home Affairs and

was occasioned by the urgent need to fill the post of Inspector General in

the B.S.F. with a suitable officer consequent upon the promotion of tho

seniormost Inspector General in the B.S.F. as Additional Director General,

B.S.F.; and the appellant

was considered a suitable officer; for appointment

to that post. That proposal of the Ministry of Home Affairs was approved D

in due course by the higher authorities including the

Prime Minister.

Shri Jethmalani rightly urged that the record

is bound to show that

nothing unusual

was done and the inference of malafides should be drawn

· by reading in between the lines and taking into account the attendant E

circumstances. We have referred to the record only to mention that there

is nothing therein to suggest that the transfer was unusual. No other

suspicious circumstance

is made but to permit the contrary inference. No

roving inquiry into the matter

is called for or justified within the scope of

judicial review of a transfer scrutinised with reference to the private rights F

of an individual. There is thus no basis to accept the appellant's contention

that his transfer

was occasioned by ma/afides of the then Prime Minister

on account of

his annoyance with the appellant for the reasons stated or

that it

was in any manner contrary to the requirements of the Tenure Rules.

There

is also material to indicate that there was need of a competent G

JPS officer in the B.S.F. for being appointed to the post of Inspector

General of Police as a result of the seniormost !GP of the B.S.F. being

prompted and appointed to the post of Additional Director General, B.S.F.

As the record shows, that was the reason for moving the appellant from

the C.B.I. to the B.S.F. to fill the vacancy created in the B.S.F. of a senior H

782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A !GP therein. These facts reflected in the relevant record negative the plea

..-

of ma/afide urged by the appellant, even assuming that the appellant

honestly believes

in the correctness of his stand. The appellant's transfer

cannot, therefore, be held to have been made

by the then

Prime Minister

to wreak

his vengeance upon the appellant. This impression of the appel-

•

B

!ant, even if honestly held, is not supported by any acceptable material.

"°

It is not necessary to refer lo the several decisions cited by Shri

Jethmalarii since the grounds for judicial review of a transfer and the limits

thereof are settled and not in dispute. One decision on which particular

c

emphasis was laid by

Shri Jethmailani may however be referred. That

decisioL is Regina v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, (1968) 2

Q.B. 118, which is clearly distinguishable. That relates to the performance

of a duty and holds that a police officer owed a duty to the public to

enforce the

law which he could

be compelled to perform and that his

discretion

in the matter was not absolute. In the facts of this case and the

D reasons for

_which we have reached the conclusion that the appellant's

transfer from the C.B.I. to the B.S.F. is not vitiated. we do. not find this

decision of

any assistance.

·;

We may observe that we do not approve of the manner in which the

E

Tribunal proceeded to decide the case. Allegations of malafides having

been made

by the appellant on affidavit, it is difficult to fathom how the

Tribunal rejected them without even requiring a counter-affidavit to rebut

them. The Tribunal's perception that the allegations made on affidavit by

the appellant

·even without any rebuttal do not constitute the plea of

F

malafide, is obviously incorrect. The Tribunal also did not appreciate the

true extent of scrutiny into such a matter and the grounds on which a

transfer

is judicially reviewable. The conclusion we have reached in the

present case

is for the reasons

given· by us and not those which impelled

the Tribunal to reject the appellant':; claim.

,.-

G We are impressed by the track record of the appellant and the

uninhibited

ac1cnowledgement and acclaim of his calibre and credentials

••

even by the respondents in spite of the serious unsubstantiated accusations

I

made by the appellant against them. The future promotions earned by the

appellant in due course are recognition of his merit and the assurance that

H his needless excursion into the arena of litigation to challenge a mere

N.K. SINGH v. U.0.1. [VERMA, J.] 783

transfer not detrimental to his career prospects has fortunately not had any A

adverse influence against him.

However, acceptance of the appellant's claim would imply that no

other officer

in the

C.B.l. is competent and fit to conduct the sensitive

investitgation and his successor would stand automatically discredited

B

without any such allegation being made or hearing given to him. That

indeed

is a tall order and impermissible in this proceeding where the other

officers are not even participants. The tendency of anyone to consider

himself indispensable

is undemocratic and unhealthy. Assessment of worth

must

be left to the bonafide decision of the superiors in service and their

honest assessment accepted

as a part of service discipline. Transfer of a C

government servant in a transferable service is a necessry incident of the

service career. Assessment of the quality of men

is to be made by the

superiors taking into account serveral factors including suitability

of the

person

for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several

imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere D

may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the

wisdom of the hierarchial superiors

to make that decision.

Unless the

decision

is vitiated by malafides or interaction of any professed norm of

,,,

principle governing the transfer .. which alone can be scrutinised judicially,

there are

no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers E

and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of

all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the

departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.

The private rights of the appellant being unaffected

by the transfer,

he would have been

well advised to leave the matter to those in public life

who felt aggrieved by his transfer to fight their own battle in the forum

available

to them. The appellant belongs to a disciplined force and as a

senior officer would be making several transfers himself. Quite likely many

of

his men, like him, may be genuinely aggrieved by their transfers. If even

F

a few of them follow his example and challenge the transfer in courts, the G

appellant would be spending his time defending

his actions instead of doing

the work

for which he holds the office. Challenge in courts of a transfer

when the career prospects remain uneffected and there

is no detriment to

the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts

should

be. rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground H

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A is made out. This litigation was ill-advised.

B

We do hope that this would be a passing phase in the service career

of the appellant and

his crusader's zeal would be confined to the sphere

of

his official activity for improving the image and quality of public service

of the police force,

in which

he holds a high office. By achieving that

purpose, he would render much greater public service. These observations

are apposite in the present context.

The appeal

is dismissed for the reasons given by us. No costs.

A.G. Appeal dismissed.