Mushtaque Ahmad Khan vs State of Bihar and Others

Aftab Alam, J.—The Petitioner is a member of the Bihar Administrative Service and he has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to challenge his order of transfer under memo No. 9076, dated 14.12.2000 (copy at Annexure 1) issued under the hand of the Additional Secretary to the Government in the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms.

The Petitioner was posted as Sub-divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (East). While he was in that position Respondent No. 7 was posted as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Muzaffarpur (East). According to the Petitioner Respondent No. 7 committed many irregularities in the discharge of his duties as Dy. Collector Land Reforms and it was the Petitioner who by his alertness and dedication to his duties was able to control and check the irregularities committed by Respondent No. 7.

It was in this background that his order of transfer came under the impugned memo dated 14.12.2000. By the impugned order 19 officers posted as, Subdivisional Officers were shifted from, their respective places of postings. The services of 11 officers were given to the revenue and Land Reforms Department, 1 went to Water Resources Departmental 2 went to the Transport Department and the services of rest 5, including the, present Petitioner, were handed over to, the Rural Engineering Organisation and; Panchayat Raj Department. By another notification No. 9064 issued on the same day a number of officers were posted at different places. By that notification Respondent No. 7 was brought to the post of Subdivisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (East), falling vacant due to the Petitioner''s transfer. This seems to have implanted the idea in the Petitioner''s mind that he has been victimised at the instance of Respondent No. 7 and his transfer has been made with the sole object of bringing Respondent No. 7 at his place. A large portion of the writ petition is, thus, devoted to citing instances of the alleged wrong doings by Respondent No. 7 and how the Petitioner thwarted the actions of Respondent No. 7 following the law and upholding the interests of the Government.

In the counter affidavit filed on be half of Respondent No. 7 these allegations, of course, have been denied and he in his turn has enumerated a number regularities committed by the petitioned while posted as Subdivisional Officer Muzaffarpur (East).

Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee learned Senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition argued the case with characteristic "passion and vehemence. He tried to convince court that the Petitioner who as Sub-divisional Officer, always acted in the best interests of the downtrodden and the oppressed was punished by the concerned authorities who had transferred him with the sole object of helping Respondent No. 7.

This aspect of the matter has been taken note of for the sake of record �s the case was mainly argued on the premise that the Petitioner''s transfer was an act of victimisation and a punishment meted out to him at the instance of Respondent No. 7 and his helpers and allies (who are not identified in the writ petition). this Court, however, is of the view that all the allegations made by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 7 and the counter allegations made by Respondent No. 7 against the Petitioner are totally irrelevant for the purpose of the case. Suffice it to note that the Petitioner''s transfer was not made by Respondent (W.7 but it was made by the State [Government on the recommendations of the Departmental Establishment Committee and it was part of a chain transfer.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms Respondent No. 2), it is clearly stated that here was no nexus between the Petitioner''s order of transfer and his quarrels with Respondent No. 7; that the services of the Petitioner were placed in the Rural Dev. Department on the post of district Panchayat Ra, Officer which was Equivalent to the post of the Subdivisional officer and the arrangement was made due to administrative exigencies arising in view of the coming Panchayat elections, was further stated that the Petitioner transferred from'' the post of Sub-divisional Officer on the recommendations the Departmental Establishment Committee.

Similarly, in the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the Secretary, Rural Dev. Department (Respondent No. 4), it is stated that in view of the Panchayat elections in Bihar the services of 18 junior selection grade Dy. Collectors were placed by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar with the Rural Dev. Department for posting as Dist. Panchayat Raj Officers. It was further stated that the Departmental Establishment Committee in its meeting, dated'' 19.12.2000 posted those officers on the vacant posts of Dist. Panchayat Raj Officer. No posting order in respect of the Petitioner, however, was issued on account of the pendency of this writ petition.

It is, thus, evident that the Petitioner''s misgivings concerning his transfer are quite unfounded and baseless. His transfer is not a measure of punishment or victimisation but it has been made in administrative exigencies and the Petitioner is expected to accept it with good grace.

No relief can be granted to the Petitioner by this Court. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

It is, expected that the Rural Development, Rural Engineering Organisation and the Panchayat Raj Department will now give a proper posting to the Petitioner without any delay.