Whistleblowing Activities Don't Make Employee 'Immune' From Transfer: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an internal whistleblower in an organisation cannot forever immunize himself against transfer, by merely leveling allegations of vengeance against the officials.A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed that accepting the contrary would,"[It cannot] amount to holding that, by leveling allegations against the officials of the department or engaging in whistle-blowing activities, whether rightly or wrongly, an employee insulates himself forever from transfer. This, quite obviously, can never be the position in law…Of course, if the employee is able to satisfy the Court that there is a link between his whistle-blowing activities and the transfer order, the Court would be justified in interfering.”The Court was dealing with a petition filed by CRPF personnel, challenging his transfer to Manipur. He contended that the order of transfer is vitiated by malice and is in retaliation to his whistleblowing activities.The Court however observed that no proof of mala fides was placed on record by the Petitioner. Rather, there was nothing to indicate any link between the alleged whistleblowing activities of the petitioner and the transfer.“There can be no doubt about the fact that, if an order of transfer is by way of retaliation against an employee, the order would be vitiated. However, it would be for the concerned employee in that case to make out a clear case in that regard,” it said.The Court added that when dealing with paramilitary forces, a much greater latitude is required to be accorded to the authorities concerned to decide on the posting of various persons.“It is well settled that Courts should be chary in interfering in matters of transfer. Interference with transfer orders at the drop of a hat completely dislocates the administrative functions of the department,” it said and dismissed the petition.Appearance: Mr. Manish Sangwan, Adv. along with Mr. Anshul Kumar, Mr. Manish Mishra and Ms. Tanya Gupta, Advs. with Petitioner in person; Rohan Jaitley, CGSC, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi Adv, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh Adv, Mr. Yogya Bhatia Adv, Comdt. Law Saurav, 2-I/C Avinash, AC Law Ajay Pal(CRPF) Case title: Rahul Solanki v. CRPFCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1063Case no.: W.P.(C) 13427/2025Click here to read order

Whistleblowing Activities Don't Make Employee 'Immune' From Transfer: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags