High Court

administrative grounds. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 24.10.2024 by which the petitioner has been relieved from Unnao.

3. The brief facts as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner is initially appointed on the post of Survey Lekhpal under the Dying in harness Rules, 1974. On 16.11.2001, it is stated that several complaints have been received by the respondents with regard to the transfer of the petitioner out of Unnao and even on 12.12.2023, the Minister of State of the Government of U.P. had requested the Chairman of the Board of Revenue to transfer the petitioner from Unnao to any other District in Uttar Pradesh. It has also been stated that the respondent no.6, a private respondent had also submitted a complaint against the petitioner stating that some vigilance inquiry is pending against the petitioner and it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer the petitioner out of Unnao and consequently, he should be transferred.

4. In the writ petition, several such letters have been annexed indicating that numerous persons had made a request for transfer the petitioner out of District Unnao. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on 29.06.2024 and which has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the competent authority has not applied its mind to the various allegations levelled against the petitioner and also there is conspiracy to remove from Unnao and hence, has challenged the order in the present writ petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has received written instructions from the Commissioner and Secretary of the Board of Revenue. From the said complaint, it is clear that vigilance inquiry with regard to the disproportionate assets is going on against the petitioner and the petitioner being posted on the post of Lekhpal in District - Unnao may interfere in the said inquiry and consequently, it was thought it proper to transfer the petitioner outside District Unnao so that he may not be able to influence the ongoing inquiry.

6. The petitioner at the relevant time was attached to District Kannauj and it is also taken into account that at Kannauj there was no sanctioned post of Survey Lekhpal vacant and accordingly, the petitioner could not have been allowed to continue at Kannauj and neither was it appropriate to attach him to the Revenue Board in light of the ongoing inquiry and consequently, after due consideration impugned order has been passed transferring him to Balia. Accordingly, it was submitted that the respondents have been able to demonstrate that there is sufficient material against the petitioner to transfer him on administrative grounds and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. We have considered the rival contentions.

8. It is noticed that by means of impugned order of transfer dated 29.06.2024, the petitioner has been transferred from Kannauj to Balia. The place of posting of the petitioner was at Unnao but he was attached at Kannauj on 04.10.2023 keeping in mind on the request made to the Board of Revenue for posting a Survey Lekhpal at Kannauj. It is during this period that certain complaints have been received pertaining to accumulation of disproportionate assets more than the known source of income by the petitioner and accordingly a vigilance inquiry was ordered which is underway. It is in the meanwhile that numerous applications were received by the State Government with regard to the transfer of the petitioner in light of the ongoing vigilance inquiry and this aspect of the matter was duly considered and accordingly by means of the impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred to Balia.

9. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the petitioner has been transferred only on account of pendency of the vigilance inquiry. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is always in the discretion of the appointing authority/ competent authority to take a decision with regard to the posting of any government servant. It is within the discretion of the competent authority / appointing authority to transfer a person in case, there are serious allegations which may adversely affect the overall environment of impact the administration of the office of the department where he is posted. In either of the situation, the authority would be within its competence to take a decision with regard to the transfer of the government servant. It is also noticed that a government servant does not have any right to be posted at the particular place but on the other hand the transfer posting of any government servant is controlled by the rules and guidelines framed by the State Government and it cannot be arbitrary exercised without any basis or reason.

10. In the present case, we find that the reasonable ground exists which has been duly considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order of transfer dated 29.06.2024. In light of the above, we do not find any ground for interference in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With regard to the request of the petitioner that his son is studying in Class-X and he may be allowed to retain either in Unnao or posted at a nearby place which may enable him to look after the education of the son at the crucial stage, we find it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for change of the transferred place or posting of the petitioner and in case any other post is available after due consideration the competent authority, who is directed to consider and pass a reasoned and speaking order disposing of the grievance raised by the petitioner in this regard. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted one week's time to move application in this regard to opposite party no.3. On receipt of the said representation, the opposite party no.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, say within a period of ten days thereafter and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

11. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 KR [Alok Mathur,J.]

administrative grounds. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 24.10.2024 by which the petitioner has been relieved from Unnao.

3. The brief facts as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner is initially appointed on the post of Survey Lekhpal under the Dying in harness Rules, 1974. On 16.11.2001, it is stated that several complaints have been received by the respondents with regard to the transfer of the petitioner out of Unnao and even on 12.12.2023, the Minister of State of the Government of U.P. had requested the Chairman of the Board of Revenue to transfer the petitioner from Unnao to any other District in Uttar Pradesh. It has also been stated that the respondent no.6, a private respondent had also submitted a complaint against the petitioner stating that some vigilance inquiry is pending against the petitioner and it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer the petitioner out of Unnao and consequently, he should be transferred.

4. In the writ petition, several such letters have been annexed indicating that numerous persons had made a request for transfer the petitioner out of District Unnao. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on 29.06.2024 and which has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the competent authority has not applied its mind to the various allegations levelled against the petitioner and also there is conspiracy to remove from Unnao and hence, has challenged the order in the present writ petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has received written instructions from the Commissioner and Secretary of the Board of Revenue. From the said complaint, it is clear that vigilance inquiry with regard to the disproportionate assets is going on against the petitioner and the petitioner being posted on the post of Lekhpal in District - Unnao may interfere in the said inquiry and consequently, it was thought it proper to transfer the petitioner outside District Unnao so that he may not be able to influence the ongoing inquiry.

6. The petitioner at the relevant time was attached to District Kannauj and it is also taken into account that at Kannauj there was no sanctioned post of Survey Lekhpal vacant and accordingly, the petitioner could not have been allowed to continue at Kannauj and neither was it appropriate to attach him to the Revenue Board in light of the ongoing inquiry and consequently, after due consideration impugned order has been passed transferring him to Balia. Accordingly, it was submitted that the respondents have been able to demonstrate that there is sufficient material against the petitioner to transfer him on administrative grounds and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. We have considered the rival contentions.

8. It is noticed that by means of impugned order of transfer dated 29.06.2024, the petitioner has been transferred from Kannauj to Balia. The place of posting of the petitioner was at Unnao but he was attached at Kannauj on 04.10.2023 keeping in mind on the request made to the Board of Revenue for posting a Survey Lekhpal at Kannauj. It is during this period that certain complaints have been received pertaining to accumulation of disproportionate assets more than the known source of income by the petitioner and accordingly a vigilance inquiry was ordered which is underway. It is in the meanwhile that numerous applications were received by the State Government with regard to the transfer of the petitioner in light of the ongoing vigilance inquiry and this aspect of the matter was duly considered and accordingly by means of the impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred to Balia.

9. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the petitioner has been transferred only on account of pendency of the vigilance inquiry. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is always in the discretion of the appointing authority/ competent authority to take a decision with regard to the posting of any government servant. It is within the discretion of the competent authority / appointing authority to transfer a person in case, there are serious allegations which may adversely affect the overall environment of impact the administration of the office of the department where he is posted. In either of the situation, the authority would be within its competence to take a decision with regard to the transfer of the government servant. It is also noticed that a government servant does not have any right to be posted at the particular place but on the other hand the transfer posting of any government servant is controlled by the rules and guidelines framed by the State Government and it cannot be arbitrary exercised without any basis or reason.

10. In the present case, we find that the reasonable ground exists which has been duly considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order of transfer dated 29.06.2024. In light of the above, we do not find any ground for interference in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With regard to the request of the petitioner that his son is studying in Class-X and he may be allowed to retain either in Unnao or posted at a nearby place which may enable him to look after the education of the son at the crucial stage, we find it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for change of the transferred place or posting of the petitioner and in case any other post is available after due consideration the competent authority, who is directed to consider and pass a reasoned and speaking order disposing of the grievance raised by the petitioner in this regard. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted one week's time to move application in this regard to opposite party no.3. On receipt of the said representation, the opposite party no.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, say within a period of ten days thereafter and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

11. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 KR [Alok Mathur,J.]