Manmit Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner, who is working on the post of E.T.T. Teacher has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 30.8.2012, whereby amongst other officials the petitioner has been transferred from Narpur, Block Gurdaspur to Taruwali, Block Dera Baba Nanak. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the perusal of the impugned order itself would reveal that the petitioner has been transferred on the basis of a complaint. It is not a matter of dispute that vide Annexure P-3 dated 29.3.2012 the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Narpur (Gurdaspur) had submitted a complaint against the petitioner. In pursuance thereof the petitioner had been served with a show cause notice pertaining to allegations of having been found absent from the school on 26.3.2012 as also for the non-utilization of the construction grant pertaining to the school for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs. Counsel would submit that a reply had been submitted to the show cause notice refuting the allegations. It is contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner were completely false and baseless and as such the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner has not been passed in the normal administrative exigency of service. The argument raised is that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner is punitive in nature.

Learned counsel places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam reported as 2003 (11) SCC 740 as also a judgment of this Court rendered in case of Jaswinder Kaur Uppal Vs. State of Haryana reported as 2000 (1) S.C.T. 489.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I find that the present writ petition merits dismissal.

Transfer is an incidence of service. An order of transfer would be open to challenge only, if, such order has been passed in violation of a statutory provision or has been issued by an authority not vested with the jurisdiction to pass such an order.

In so far as malafides are concerned, the pleadings in the present writ petition are utterly vague. Even though, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has been transferred at the behest of the Sarpanch of the village, who in turn claims him to be a close associate of the local M.L.A. of the ruling party but in terms of such averments, it would not be possible for this Court to return a finding so as to hold the impugned order of transfer qua the petitioner to be vitiated by the malafides.

The judicial precedents cited by learned counsel for the petitioner have no relevance in the light of the peculiar facts of the present case. In case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi (supra) it had been held that the transfer of officers is required to be effected against the backdrop of certain norms or guidelines regulating transfers. In the present case it is not the argument set up that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner is contrary to any transfer policy/guidelines that may have been formulated by the State.

In so far as Jaswinder Kaur Uppal''s case (supra) is concerned, the transfer of the petitioner therein had been made on the basis of complaint and such complaint upon inquiry had been found to be totally baseless and fake. As such it had been held that a transfer order on the basis of a complaint that had been found to be bogus, could not be sustained. The facts are clearly distinguishable.

In the present case, in pursuance to the complaint a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner to which he had responded. The appropriate authority having granted opportunity to the petitioner as regards the allegations raised against him has passed the impugned transfer order thereafter. No merit, petition dismissed.