Krishan Lal vs State of Uttarakhand and another

Hon''ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand.

The case of the petitioner is that he was a Deputy Range Officer in the Forest Department of Government of Uttarakhand and he was transferred vide order dated 2.7.2010 from Uttarkashi to Tehri Garhwal. Subsequently the order was not implemented and thereafter in consequence of the representation made by the petitioner for cancellation of said transfer order dated 2.7.2010 the matter was considered by the Committee and on the recommendations of the Committee, the appropriate authority cancelled the said transfer order. Later, the petitioner has again been transferred without approval of the Committee. This, in short, was the case of the petitioner that the earlier transfer order dated 2.7.2010 which was in his favour has been reversed and the petitioner has now been transferred, though no approval of the Committee has been taken in this case.

Counter affidavit has been filed along with the Stay Vacation Application. In the Counter affidavit the State has filed various annexures including Annexure No. 1 stating that there are various complaints against the petitioner by the local residents and it is because of those complaints that the petitioner has been transferred. Therefore, now it is apparent that the impugned transfer order has been passed on administrative ground, moreover, as a punitive measure without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 3.9.2011 is bad in the eyes of law. This Court is of considered view, particularly in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Damyanti Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2008 (2) UD 517 that the impugned order dated 3.9.2011 cannot stand. Order dated 3.9.2011 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed.

At this stage, the counsel representing the State Mr. H.M. Raturi has stated that there are various complaints against the petitioner and his staying in the present posting would not be in public interest. Nothing needs to be said by this Court on this aspect. Though, in case there are complaints against the petitioner, the respondents are at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.