R.B. Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Judgment

4. State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary, Department of Forest, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) through The Conservator of Forest, Forest Circle - Sarguja, Distt. Sarguja (CG) The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division - North Sarguja, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.)

Mr. S.L. Verma, aged about 55 years, son of not known to the petitISner, occupation - Service, vifcrking as - Up - Prabandh Sanchdlak, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) Zila Union WfeIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CUNSTITUTION OF INDIA, mOH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2997 of2012 PETITIONER R.B.Singh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDTA. SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J, Present: Shri A.N.Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General forthe St?t°/ respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER (Passed on 29 day ofNovember, 2012)

1. With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard fmally.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing ofthe order dated 31.07.2012 (Annexure P/4) in respect of tlie petitioner, whereby the petitioner, working as Suh Divisional Officer (Forest), North Surguja Forest Division, has been posted as Attached Officer, on the vacant post ofNorth Surguja Forest Division. Further, the petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated

31.07.2012 (Annexure P/l) in respect of the respondent No. 4, whereby the respondent No. 4, working as Deputy Managing Director, District Union, Manendragarh, has been transferred to Pratappur, North Surguja Forest - Division, as Sub Divisional Officer (Forest). t;.H::l..: ^ Shri Bhatka, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been posted as Attachod Officer, just to accommodate the respondent No. 4. Since the petitioner is already working at Pratappur Forest SuL Division, there is no vacant post, despite that S;" respondent No. 4 has been transferred in place of the petitioner. The action of the respondent authorities i" illegal, arbitrary and mala fide as the impugned orders have been passed on the recommendation letter of the President of the Bhartiya Janta Party, written on '", 12.02.2012. The impugned transfer has been made ia violation ofclause 2.8 ofthe transfer policy 2012-13 as he has not competed one year at his present place ofposting. Further, the petitioner is at the verge ofretirement as only 1 year and 9 monfhs are left for his retirement. On the other hand, Shri Moorthy, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that the impugned orders have been issued in the name and by order of the Govemor, after taking approval from the Minister of the Departmeht. There is no question of mala fide or arbitrariness as the transfer has been made purely on administrative exigency. So far as recommendation made by the President, Bhartiya Janta Party, is concemed, the same was made on 12.02.2012, whereas the impugned transfer orders have been passed on 31.07.2012. The cass of the petitioner was considered independently, withort being influenced by the recommendation, as afore-stated. t';5^~. •;;', B "v^'3^.« ^s' The impugned transfers have been made by the competent authority after following the due process of law. Thus, no mterference is warranted.

5. Shri Guru, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, in addition to the submissions made by leamed State counsel, submits that on 07.08.2012, the respondent No. 4 has assumed the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Pratappur and till date, he is discharging his duties on the said post. Further, the transfer of the petitioner is a mere table shifting, which would in no manner affect the petitioner.

6. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadmgs and documents appended thereto.

7. The contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer orders have been passed just to accommodate the respondent No. 4, is a mere selfsame statement. When one post falls vacant, some person has to be posted there, may be the respondent No. 4 in the instant case. Further, the ground of mala-fide is nothing except the selfsame statement, not supported by any documentary or any other evidence. The next contention that fhe impugned transfer orders were passed on the basis ofthe recommendation of a political person, also does not appear to be correct, as alongwifh the petitioner, five other persons have also been transferred on 31.07.2012 by the same order (Annexure P/4), and 27 persons in the order 31.07.2012 (Annexure 'y/l). The petitioner has completely failed to establish the ^ allegation of malafide on the basis of cogent and strong reasons. A letter was written five months before and the petitioner was transferred alongwith. several employees on 31.07.2012, has nothing to do with each other.

8. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular ofHcer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency and there should not be any interference with the administrative function ofthe State Govemment.

9. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any permissible legal ground i.e. violation ofany statutory riiles or regulations or lack ofcompetence ofthe ofBcer, passing the impugned order.

10. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved maki fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remam at one place forever. Under the provisions of service mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place view of public interest administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , Union oflndia and another v. '(1974)4SCC3 •^3''?3"'!^ , ^;-.;,-"^ J£•^y 9^- Janardhan Debanath & another, State of M.P. and another v. S.S.Kowav and others and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Raihvay, Secunderabad v. G. Ratnam , Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey , High Court of Judicative of Madras v. R. Perachi and the decision ofthis Coiirt m Brajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Dr. Toshan Lal Todar v. State ofChhattisgarh ).

11. In view of the above, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit