High Court · 2012

The writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.01.2012 (Annexu re-4) by which the petitioner in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Excise has been transferred from Margherita to Gohpur against a vacant post. While enterta ining the writ petition by order dated 13.02.2012, direction was issued to maint ain status quo on the movement of the petitioner. On the strength of the said in terim order, the petitioner still still continuing at Margherita. The ground on which the petitioner has challenged the transfer order is that the petitioner ha s been made the victim of the circumstances. It is the stand of the petitioner t hat because of her activities for betterment of the department and collection of huge revenues, the group working against her has pressurised the authority to p ass the impugned transfer order. Another ground urged by the petitioner is that she having only completed 14 months at Margherita as against the normal tenure of three years, she could not be transferred before completion of three years. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit denying the pleas raise d in the writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioner has been transfer red purely in the exigencies of service. As regards the plea of the petitioner t hat she has been transferred prematurely, it is the stand of the respondents tha t the petitioner had to be transferred in exceptional circumstances and that the provision for normal transfer and posting of three years being not a statutory one, the petitioner cannot place reliance on the same. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that allegations made against the petitioner were gone into and the SDO (C) by his re ports dated 25.11.2011 and 29.22.2011 exonerated the petitioner from the allegat ions. The respondents have filed Misc. case No. 1809/2012 seeking vacation of the interim order dated 30.02.2012. In the said application it has been stated t hus: (cid:28)4. That the applicant states that, the allegations made in the writ petition ar e baseless and not correct. The transfer order dated 27.01.2012 transferring the petitioner has been issued in the interest of public service. The Government of Assam Exercise Department has received many allegations against the petitioner while she was functioning as the Deputy Superintendent of Excise, Margherita, so me of the which are cited herein below: a) The petitioner was habitually irregular in her office attendance. As per repo rt of Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, dated 28.11.2011, she was absent from Headq uarter without permission on 4th and 5th Nov. 2011, i.e. around the time she app eared before the electronic media. b) She appeared before the media without Government’s approval, thereby violatin g Government O.M. No. ABP. 25/97/152 dated 18.04.2007 issued by Personnel Depart ment. c) The official records are ample proof of her poor performance. On many occasio ns, Government received various complaints against the officer. As per report su bmitted by Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, she allowed an Assistant Inspector of Excise to sign permit passes on her behalf on verbal orders. In a sub-division p ermits are signed by Deputy Superintendence of Excise and in her absence by an I nspector of Excise after putting him in charge in writing. In this case, no char ge was given and no permission from superior authority was obtained. d) The office order dated 22.12.2011 does not reflect that there should be not a single transfer of officer who have not completed a tenure of two years. Under the said O.M. transfer of officers can be affected under exceptional circumstanc es. From the statement (Annexure-E) it is found that her conduct is very irrespo nsible. During the month of Oct., 2011, not a single permit was singed by her. T here is no record of her being on leave during that month. Petitioner’s order has been issued under the said OM which says that tra nsfer of officer can be affected under exceptional circumstances. Petitioner’s transfer order has been issued under exceptional circumstan ces/ground as stated at (a), (b), (c) and (d). In the light of the afore cited exceptional circumstances, and in appreh ension of tampering of official records and her irresponsible conduct, Govt. dec ided to transfer the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner has been posted in Margherita for about o ne year two months. Prior to that she served in Tinsukia District for about one year two months, i.e. she was posted in Tinsukia District for about 2years, 4 mo nths at a stretch. Earlier she served in Tinsuika District for about seven month s, i.e. from June 2000 to January 2001. It may be mentioned here that since her joining in service in July 1992, she has served mostly in the adjoining district of Dibrugarh as per the Reports dated 23.02.2012 and 12.03.2012. (cid:29) To quell any doubt, the file in which the transfer order has been issued , was called for and Ms. S. Seal, learned SC, Excise Department has produced the same. I have very carefully gone through the entire file. On perusal of the fi le it appears that the authority in the Excise Department considering the facts and circumstances involved, adopted a conscious decision to transfer out the pet itioner from Margherita. It appears that certain serious charges have been level led against the petitioner and there is contemplation of initiating departmental proceeding against her and in fact, preliminary enquiry was conducted and the p etitioner was given required opportunities including inspection of documents etc . However, in the writ petiton, there is no whisper regarding the said prelimina ry enquiry. As regards the plea of the petitioner that the SDO (C) has exonerated th e petitioner from the allegations, on perusal of the two letters and the reports annexed to the reply affidavit, it appears that plea is far from the actual fac t. The fact of the matter is that by letter dated 25.11.2011, the SDO (C) has in timated the Deputy Secretary, Excise Department that the petitioner did not take any leave to go Guwahati w.e.f. 31.10.2011 to 03.11.2011. The other letter date d 29.11.2011 is not in the from of report exonerating the petitioner from the al legation, rather it speaks of requirement of further verification etc. On perusal of the file, what is seen is that the allegations against the petitioner are subsequent to the aforesaid two letters dated 25.11.2011 and 29.

11.2011. In the matter of transfer of a Government employee, the authority is the best judge to decide. On perusal of the file, I do not find any malafide exerci se of power and/or violation of the statutory rules. Situated thus, this Court e xercising the power of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit on appeal over the decision of the authority. Accordingly, I d o not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of transfer and conse quently, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 13.02.2012 stands vacated. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of th is Court to approach the authority by making appropriate representation for her posting elsewhere other than Gohpur. I am afraid, no such permission is required from this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.