Suresh Chandra Joshi vs State of Uttarakhand and others

V.K. BIST, J.

Petitioner is challenging the transfer order dated 27.11.2017 passed by respondent no. 4, by which the petitioner has been transferred from

Government Inter College, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar to Government Inter College, Okhalkanda, District Nainital on administrative ground;

relieving order dated 04.12.2017 and the order dated 02.02.2018 by which the representation moved by the petitioner has been rejected.

It is not in dispute that petitioner is working in the Government Inter College, Sitarganj for the last 19 years.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has crossed 55 years of age, he cannot be transferred under the

compulsory transfer, therefore, transfer order has deliberately been passed on administrative ground. He submitted that there was some hot talks

between the petitioner and one lecturer, namely Mahendra Kumar Morya. Mr. Morya attacked the petitioner by throwing chair on him; but, Mr.

Morya himself fell down, due to which he sustained injuries. It is contended that the petitioner did nothing and the Inquiry Committee has wrongly

observed that the petitioner is also responsible for not keeping proper atmosphere in the college. It is further contended by the petitioner that the son of

the petitioner is suffering from Brain Tumor for last several years and he is undergoing treatment at A.I.I.M.S. Delhi and it will be difficult for the

petitioner to continue treatment of his son at A.I.I.M.S. Delhi from Okhalkanda, District Nainital, where he has been transferred. It is further

submitted that the parents of the petitioner are very old age person and there is no one in the family of the petitioner to look after his parents;

therefore, in such circumstances, the transfer order of the petitioner should be interfered with.

Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that a complaint was received from the wife of Mr.

Mahendra Kumar Morya, Lecturer (Mathematics). On the said complaint, the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar wrote a letter to the S.D.M.

Sitarganj, who, in turn, directed the Block Education Officer, Sitarganj to hold an inquiry with regard to the said complaint. Thereafter, the Block

Education Officer, Sitarganj constituted a three members committee, comprising of himself alongwith Principal Government Inter College, Audli,

Sitarganj and Principal, Government Inter College, Bijit, Sitrarganj. The committee submitted a report on 26.08.2017 to the District Magistrate Undham

Singh Nagar. In the report, the committee suggested that, considering the welfare of the students and to maintain discipline and educational

environment in the School, the transfer of the petitioner as well as of the Principal of the College is necessary.

Thereafter, the Transferring Authority considered the report as well as other material and transferred the petitioner on administrative ground.

Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the intervener opposed the writ petition. They

submitted that the conduct of the petitioner was not good and he, in fact, hurt the intervener. They also submitted that the petitioner transferred earlier

also; but, he anyhow managed to get the transfer order cancelled.

On this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, earlier petitioner was also transferred; but, on the representation made by the

petitioner to the effect that petitioner’s son is suffering from brain tumor, the transfer orders were cancelled by the authority concerned.

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. In my view also, the petitioner should not be permitted to

continue at the present place of posting. He has worked for 19 years at present place of posting. It cannot be said that there was no material available

before the Transferring Authority to transfer the petitioner on administrative ground. The material was there and the Transferring Authority, by

applying its mind, transferred the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any illegality, in the impugned transfer order. I am surprised to learn that the

Transferring Authority has not taken any action in the matter of Principal of the College, against whom also report was submitted. I leave it open to

the authority to take appropriate action on the report of the Inquiry Committee.

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been transferred in a remote place and it would not be possible

for him to get treatment of his son from A.I.I.M.S. Delhi is concerned, I permit the petitioner to move a representation before the concerned authority

for his posting at a place from where it would be convenient for him to get the treatment of his son done; but, petitioner is directed to join at the

transferred place without any further delay. The authority concerned is directed to take decision on the said representation expeditiously. The authority

concerned is further directed not to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner for his non-joining at the transferred place during the pendency of

the writ petition considering the fact that the son of the petitioner is suffering from brain tumor and he was busy in treatment of his son.

Needless to say that the period for which the petitioner was granted interim protection by the Court, the petitioner is supposed to be working in the

institution for the period he has worked where he was working. For remaining period and also for the period he was not worked in the institution, the

petitioner may file leave application under the relevant Rules. In case petitioner joins within a period of two weeks from today and thereafter submits

application for leave, the authority/ authorities concerned shall consider the application of the petitioner for grant of leave and also for grant of salary

for the said period in accordance with law.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition stands disposed of.