P.C. Dharoch vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was filed challenging Annexure P-2, the order of transfer, whereby he was transferred from Ghumarwin to Fatehpur. The Learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the transfer since it was not noted that the same was made on the basis of complaints and hence dismissed the writ petition. In the appeal, the Appellant-writ Petitioner made some specific allegations as to the reasons for the transfer, partly reiterating the allegations already made in the writ petition. Therefore, this Court directed the Principal Secretary (IPH) to look into the matter. The Principal Secretary has filed an affidavit dated 17.8.2011. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the affidavit reads as follows:

That in this regard it is respectfully stated that a two member committee consisting of Superintending Engineer IPH Circle Hamirpur and Superintending Engineer Bilaspur was constituted vide letter No. IPH-A(B)6-9/2010 dated 4.7.11 to enquire into the substance of the allegations raised in ground "D" of LPA filed by the Appellant.

That from perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the committee it has been observed that so far as the transfer proposal of the Appellant is concerned the Hon''ble Chief Minister being Administrative Head of the State is a competent authority to approve the transfer of any govt. servant and therefore, he has a right to decide whether a complaint should be entertained or not. Similarly, the Hon''ble Dy. Speaker being a public representative can recommend transfer of any Govt. employees to the Hon''ble Chief Minister and it is for him to approve or not to approve the recommendation/proposal of the public representatives. Therefore, the transfer of the Petitioner can not be said to be malafide.

That so far as the allegation alleged in the complaints made by the Pradhan Gram Panchayat Baragaon Gallu and and BJP Mandal Ghumarwin and Vice Chairman Panchayat Samiti Jandhuta is a matter of record and the inquiry committee has not specifically commented on the same. Copy the inquiry report is annexed as annexure R-1 for kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court.

That from perusal of the complaints given by the Non Gazetted organizations and participation of certain group of employees in strikes and shouting slogans against the Department, has only aggravated the working climate. Furthermore, filing of cross FIR''s by both the officers against each others amounts to a lack of work culture in both officers. Therefore, in order to avoid confrontation and smooth functioning of the Division it will be in the interest of the Department to allow some other Executive Engineer to be posted in place of the Appellant also as the Respondent No. 2 has already been posted to Fatehepur.

Learned Additional Advocate General in view of the position, as reflected above, seeks opportunity to withdraw the Annexure P-2, in order to look into the matter afresh and pass fresh orders in the light also of the submissions made at Paragraph-5 of the affidavit as extracted above. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner submits that there is no cross FIR as stated at paragraph-5. He has only discharged his duties as per the guidelines. When certain records were found missing he lodged a complaint and when the records were traced the complaint has been closed and there is no FIR at the instance of the Appellant-Petitioner.

Be that as it may. In view of the request made by the Learned Additional Advocate General for withdrawal of Annexure P-2, this appeal is disposed of with liberty to the Government to withdraw Annexure P-2 and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, so also the pending application(s), if any. The judgment under appeal will stand modified to the above extent.

Authenticated copy to the parties.