Susheel Kumar Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Deepak Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who is an officer belonging to the Himachal Administrative Services (HAS), has, by means of this petition, challenged the order, dated 11.06.2012, whereby he has been transferred as Deputy Commissioner (R&R) Talwara and respondent No. 2, Shri Suresh Kumar Jaswal, has been posted at his place. The main ground of attack of the petitioner was that the transfer is actuated by malafides. In this behalf reference is being made to para 9 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:

That let records with respect to the transfer of the petitioner be summoned and perusal of the same would bring astonishing facts to the notice of this Hon''ble Court that what kind of notes have been put in issuing transfer orders of the petitioner. Petitioner is going to apply under the Right to Information Act for supplying the said notes and as soon as the same are made available, petitioner will produce the same before this Hon''ble Court. In fact, petitioner has been given to understand that transfer of the petitioner is being ordered keeping in view the ensuing Assembly elections. Thus, there are clear-cut malafides and present is a fit of the fittest cases, in which impugned transfer orders of the petitioner are liable to be quashed and set aside.

The other ground raised by the petitioner is that he is on the verge of retirement sine he is going to superannuate on 31.12.2012 and therefore, should not have been disturbed at this stage.

As far as the first ground is concerned, despite the averments made in the petition and quoted hereinabove, the petitioner has not placed any material on record to support those averments. We had summoned the record and perused the record ourselves and we find that the allegations are baseless and there is no material to support such allegations.

As far as the second allegation is concerned, it is true that the petitioner has a short time to retire, but it has been pointed out by the respondents in the reply that the petitioner has been posted as Deputy Commissioner (R&R) Talwara, but posted at Raja Ka Talab, which is only at a distance of 12 kilometers from his present place of posting. It is, therefore, obvious that there is no great disturbance to the petitioner by the transfer in question.

We may also point out that on 15.06.2012, while issuing notice, we had directed the respondents to file a short affidavit stating what were the reasons which compelled the respondents to transfer the petitioner from Jawali to Talwara when there were only six months left for his superannuation. In the reply, it has been stated by the respondents that the State felt that since elections were due, it would be better to post a young and energetic officer to handle the work rather than the person who is at the verge of retirement.

It has also come on record that earlier also the petitioner served as SDO (Civil) Jawali with effect from 2007 to 2008. Thereafter, he was posted to Nalagarh, where he remained for two years. Then, he was brought back to Nurpur, where he remained for about one year. Nurpur is close to Jawali. The petitioner was then transferred to Rampur, but on his request, the orders were modified and he was again posted at Jawali. Therefore, the petitioner has spent a large period of his past five years service at Jawali or at Nurpur. Now also, he has been transferred to Talwara, but will be holding office at Raja Ka Talab, which is only 12 kilometers from his present place of posting. In fact, the petitioner is already holding the charge of this post.

It is also pointed out that after orders were passed by this Court, a proposal was made that the transfer of the petitioner be cancelled and the matter was put up at the highest level. However, after due consideration of the matter, the authorities at the highest level of the State, felt that it would be better not to accept this proposal and to retain respondent No. 2 at Jawali. While doing so, reference has been made to the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra and also the report of the ADM, Kangra, in which it is stated that some agitation at Jawali was handled very well by respondent No. 2.

We are not going into the relative merits of the petitioner and respondent No. 2, but we feel that the State has taken a decision as per its requirements and administrative exigencies. There are no malafides and, therefore, there is no merit in the petition.

At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised another plea that the transfers of SDMs, who are equivalent to the Electoral Registration Officers, are not permitted after 16th May, 2012, except with the approval of the Election Commission of India. This point was never raised in the original petition and a totally new point cannot be permitted to be raised in the rejoinder. Therefore, we find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.