Niraj Kumar Tripathi vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admit the petition.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31-5-2010 and 4-6-2010 (Annexure-1), whereby the petitioner was transferred from Pauri Garhwal to Bageshwar in the Rural Engineering Services Department, Division Bageshwar on administrative ground.

According to the petitioner, an enquiry was held against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made against him by Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Assistant Engineer. The petitioner has filed the enquiry report as Annexure-5 to the petition showing that none of the 14 charges levelled against him has been made out. In the enquiry report it was also observed that the charges were made out against the complainant Yuvraj Singh himself.

In paragraph No. 10 of the memo of writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that there is only one written complaint against the petitioner made by Sri Yuvraj Singh to the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer. On the complaint, enquiry was conducted and the allegations against the petitioner were found false and frivolous.

The grievance of the petitioner is that although no charge has been proved against the petitioner, yet the petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground, while the complainant Yuvraj Singh against whom charges are proved has not been transferred.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. In reply to the averments made in paragraph 10, it is stated in paragraph No. 12 of the counter affidavit "that in reply to the contents of para 10 of the writ petition, it is submitted that by letter dated 23-4-2010 the Executive Engineer, Pauri was directed to enquire into the matter. The report of the Executive Engineer has been received on which proper action would be taken."

Thus, in the counter affidavit, no proper reply has been given whether the charges made against the petitioner were found false and frivolous or not. The reply filed in the counter affidavit is vague and evasive.

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Damyanti Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. 2008 (2) U.D. 517 has found that the transfer on administrative grounds can be effected in the following situations namely:

If there are serious complaints against the person sought to be transferred; or

If the person sought to be transferred has misbehaved with superior officers; or

If the person sought to be transferred has not been taking interest in the work.

The Full Bench of this Court has further held that "in other words, before effecting a transfer on administrative grounds, the Authority competent to transfer must prima facie arrive at and duly record its satisfaction about the existence and truthfulness, after due verification and confirmation, of the allegations against the persons sought to be transferred. This is a condition precedent to the transfer of the person. If this does not happen and if the prima facie satisfaction, upon due verification and confirmation, is not arrived at and duly recorded, any and every order effecting a transfer on administrative ground is vitiated as well as it is against the principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, such an order deserves to be quashed and set aside."

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material placed before this Court, I am of the view that none of the three conditions as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court for effecting transfer on administrative ground has been satisfied. On the other hand, none of the charges levelled against the petitioner was found proved by the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was concluded on 23-5-2010 but the impugned transfer order was passed by the Executive Engineer, R.E.S. Department, Division Pauri Garhwal on 4-6-2010 on administrative ground. In fact when the enquiry itself was concluded on 23-5-2010 thereby exonerating the petitioner from all the charges, there appears to be no justification for the authority concerned to transfer the petitioner on administrative ground as late as 4-6-2010.

In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 31-5-2010 and 5-6-2010 (Annexure-1 to the petition) are liable to be quashed outright. The writ petition deserves to be allowed.

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure-1 to the petition) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Pauri Garhwal to Bageshwar on administrative ground is quashed.