Chingakham Shachi vs State Of Manipur

Mr.Y.Ashang, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

With the consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned transfer and posting order dated 11.1.2021.

Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now officiating as Deputy Secretary (Hr & Tech. Edn.)

and ‘she is the wife of Babloo Litongbam, a lawyer of Human Rights Defender, who runs a non-profit organization called as Human Rights Alert

championing various public causes. Recently, her husband was elected as the Convenor of The 3.5 Collective, which is a civil society coalition striving

for the achievement of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal 3, target 5, to strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance

abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol. In this capacity, he is leading a public campaign urging the Government of Manipur to

appeal to High Court against the judgment dated 17.12.2020 in Special Trial No.100 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court (ND & PS), Manipur,

where the Chairman of Autonomous District Council (ADC), Chandel, namely Mr.Lukhosei Zou, was charged of trafficking and keeping large

quantity of illegal narcotic drugs in his official quarter, was acquitted.

The learned senior counsel further submitted that by the impugned transfer order, the petitioner was transferred and posted as ADC, Moreh and the

impugned order also involved transfer and posting of the private respondents. According to the learned senior counsel, Moreh where the petitioner

was transferred and posted is a border town known as the hotspots for smuggling contraband drugs and is presently the epicenter of the counter

campaign urging the Government not to disturb the said judgment and resisting the demand for preference of appeal. The petitioner’s husband

name is mentioned in many media handouts from Moreh.

The prime contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that as per the Office Memorandum dated 5.12.2017, normal tenure of

transfer of an officer/employee in a post will be a minimum of two years and maximum five years in the place of posting and no transfer may be

effected unless the concerned employee has completed three years in a post and also unless there are compelling reasons/circumstances to do so. In

the instant case, there is no reason mentioned in the impugned transfer order, compelling the petitioner to transfer from the present place to Moreh and

also the transfer order is in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 5.12.2017. He would submit that narrating the facts, the petitioner has

submitted a representation on 14.1.2021 to the first respondent seeking to review the transfer order dated 11.1.2021 and the said representation has

not been considered by the first respondent till date.

Heard the learned Government Advocate on the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is that she is aggrieved by the arbitrary exercise of power in issuing the impugned transfer order dated 11.1.2021,

whereby she has been transferred to Moreh within a period of three months from the earlier posting order dated 9.10.2020. Further, frequent

transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfer cannot but be held as malafide and that a transfer order which has been issued with no

reasonable basis can be termed as malafide one and liable to be quashed.

During the course of arguments, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that after submitting the representation dated 14.1.2021,

some development had taken place and therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation to the respondent authorities by

mentioning the subsequent development, for which the learned Government Advocate has no serious objection.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing on either side

and also in the interest of justice, this Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation by mentioning the subsequent development after the issuance of the impugned transfer

order dated 11.1.2021 to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) Upon receipt of the representation, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass a speaking order, after affording reasonable

opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

(iii) Till the disposal of such representation, the respondent authorities are directed not to effect the impugned transfer order dated 11.1.2021 in respect

of the petitioner.

(iv) No costs.

Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through whatsapp/e-mail.