Rajendra Prasad Pant vs State Of Utttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand-respondents and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of transfer dated 08.03.2019 passed by respondent no. 3.

The proceedings dated 08.03.2019 records that certain complaints were received regarding the petitioner, of which cognizance was taken by the Minister of the Department; certain complaints had also been received in the office of the Principal Conservator of Forests over which the Principal Conservator of Forests had sought clarification from the petitioner; keeping in view these facts, the sensitivity of Kotdwar range, and to ensure effective control of illegal mining, Mr. Kishor Kumar Nautiyal was being given charge of Kotdwar range on the basis of the approval taken from the Conservator of Forests, Shivalik Circle; and the petitioner was given charge of Dugadda until further orders.

The impugned order further records that this order was issued after approval from the Conservator of Forests for smooth functioning, and for effective control over illegal mining, illegal felling of trees and encroachments. The concerned Forest Range Officers were directed to ensure compliance of the order, and to take over charge.

The petitioner's complaint, in short, is that, though his explanation was sought and he had submitted his explanation, the impugned order of transfer was passed as a measure of punishment, without even informing him of the reasons why he had been transferred. The impugned order of transfer, no doubt, records that the Principal Conservator of Forests had sought clarification from the petitioner. It also records that illegal mining and illegal felling of trees was rampant in Kotdwar range, which was required to be controlled. The petitioner has been transferred from Kotdwar range to Dugadda, which Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state is located at a distance of 15 kilometers from the present place of posting.

Transfer from one place to another is an incidence of service, and since the petitioner has merely been shifted to a distance of 15 kilometers from the current place of posting, it is not an order which would necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that, in terms of the Uttarakhand Public Servant Annual Transfer Act, 2017, the petitioner could not have been transferred since his age is 58 years. There is a prohibition, under the Uttarakhand Public Servant Annual Transfer Act, 2017, to transfer a senior person (a person who is aged more than 55 years) from an accessible area to a remote area.

Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, would state that Dugadda, the place to which the petitioner has been transferred, is also an accessible area and not a remote area.

Viewed from any angle, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of transfer.

The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.