W.P.fS)No v. State of Chhattisgarh

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the petitioner has denied the contents of the enquiry report submitted by the respondent No.5. On going through the enquiry report it would be evident that the complaint made against the petitioner is very serious in nature. The impugned order has Oo been passed on administrative ground after obtaining approval from the Chief Minister as per the transfer policy dated 13-6-2011 read with memo dated 8-8-2011. There is no infirmity or illegality in the transfer order. Indisputably on the basis of complaints, the enquiry was conducted at the back of the petitioner without affording proper opportunity of it was hearing. Thus, the contention of the State counsel passed.on administrative ground is notjustified and the impugned transfer order appears to be as a sequel to the enquiry wherein the allegations have allegedly been found proved. Be that as it may, the order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order oftransfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass is another an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal. (See Somesh Tiwari v. Union oflndia & Others1). Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present the impugned case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, order dated 11-10-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed in respect ofthe petitioner is quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge T Gowri 1AIR 2009 SC 1399