Tej Narayan Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.—Order dated 30.05.2008, transferring the petitioner from Waterways Division, Barhi to the office of Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Ranchi prompted the petitioner to file the instant writ petition.

Heard.

Mr. V. P. Singh, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent nos. 7 and 8 against whom the petitioner has made specific allegation of malafide have failed to appear in the present proceeding and while so, allegations levelled against them must be construed correct. It is submitted that order dated 30.05.2008 is not only contrary to the instructions contained under letter dated 07.04.1995, it is actuated with malice in law and fact.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, the learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned order dated 30.05.2008 submits that it has been issued in exigencies of work.

The petitioner who was posted as Junior Engineer on 21.09.2004 at Waterways Division, Barhi claims that during inspection when he found that M/s Navin Transport has raised 18th bill in excess of Rs. 26,32,259/for the work which was executed by the previous contractor, he ordered recovery of the excess payment to M/s Navin Transport. Annoyed with petitioner''s action Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Sinha, Executive Engineer-respondent no. 7 transferred him to another post on 28.12.2007. Materials brought on record disclose that in the enquiry conducted by the Flying Squad allegation of excess payment to M/s Navin Transport was found correct. And, a first information report was lodged against respondent no. 7 for forging documents. The learned Senior counsel referring to letter dated 06.05.2008 written by respondent no. 7 submitted that the contents of the said letters in which the Executive Engineer has cast serious aspersion on the petitioner would show the malafide intention of the Executive Engineer, who wrote the said letter directly to the Chief Engineer. It is thus, contended that at the instance of the respondent no. 7 the petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 30.05.2008. However, I find that letter dated 06.05.2008 has reference to letters dated 28.12.2007, 12.01.2008, 29.02.2008, 07.04.2008 and 26.04.2008. Except letter dated 28.12.2007 whereby the petitioner was transferred, other letters have not been brought on record. Moreover, howsoever ill worded letter dated 06.05.2008 may be, it does not establish malafide of the Chief Engineer, who has passed the order of transfer.

In the context of instructions contained in letter dated 07.04.1995 where-under it is provided that normal tenure of the Junior Engineer shall be 9 years, it needs to be recorded that normally executive instruction/guidelines have no statutory force. Orders of transfer are generally not interfered by the Courts. In "Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath" reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245 it was observed as follows:

".......No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned......."

Order dated 30.05.2008 reflects that as many as, 6 persons were transferred by the same order, on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee. The plea taken by the petitioner that the events which took place after he made complaint against M/s Navin Transport would lead to a conclusive conclusion that order dated 30.05.2008 has been passed at the instant of the respondent no. 7, is misconceived. There is no material on record which would indicate that the Establishment Committee took a decision to transfer the petitioner at the instance of the Executive Engineer-respondent no. 7. Merely because the petitioner has made complaint against M/s Navin Transport and in turn, respondent no. 7 had made certain allegations against the petitioner writing letter dated 06.05.2008 to the Chief Engineer would not lead to a conclusion that the petitioner has been transferred at the instance of the respondent no. 7. The fact that a first information report has been lodged may lend credence to the allegation against M/s Navin Transport, however, it cannot be inferred that removal of the petitioner from Waterways Division, Barhi to the office of Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Ranchi vide transfer order dated 30.05.2008, was on account of malafide intention of respondent no. 7. The learned Senior counsel contended that the petitioner has been transferred from one department to another department and thus, order of transfer was without jurisdiction. This contention is also untenable. Neither the Waterways Department nor Minor Irrigation Department has raised any objection to the transfer of the petitioner. The contention that meeting of the Establishment Committee was convened on 30.05.2008 after constituting the Committee on the same day and a decision was taken on 30.05.2008 itself by the Chief Engineer who retired the next day would show the hot haste with which the petitioner was transferred, is also not sustainable for the reason that the Chief Engineer has not been made a party respondent in his individual capacity and there is no allegation of malafide against him. Above all, the petitioner has already retired from service. Another prayer made by the petitioner is for payment of salary from 01.02.2009 till date. Admittedly, the petitioner did not join his new place of posting after he was relieved on 29.01.2009. In the aforesaid fact, no direction for payment of salary to the petitioner from 01.02.2009 can be issued to the respondents. Accordingly, this prayer is declined.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the writ petition stands dismissed.