Vinod Kumar Saxena vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Joshi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.

The petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order from the post of Additional Commissioner (Commissioner Tax)/Additional Commissioner (Administrative)(Tax) at Headquarters in Dehradun to the post of Additional Commissioner (Audit) again at Headquarters, Dehradun. The ground alleged is that the petitioner had passed a quasi-judicial order u/s 57 of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005 which was not looked by his superior officers and accordingly, the petitioner has been eased out from the office. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the order that he had passed was not palatable to the superior authorities, an appeal should have filed against the said order before the Full Bench of the Tribunal u/s 53 of the VAT Act but instead of filing an appeal the petitioner has been transferred for ulterior reasons. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the post which the petitioner was holding is normally held by the senior most Additional Commissioner but now upon his transfer, a person junior to the petitioner is holding the post which will cause humiliation to the petitioner.

Upon hearing the petitioner, the Court finds that the order of transfer has been passed in public interest. The allegation of malafidies as alleged by the petitioner seems to be farfetched. The Court does not find any nexus between the order passed by the petitioner u/s 57 of the Uttarakhand VAT Act and the order of transfer. Further it is not stated in the petition that the petitioner is now required to report to a junior person, which in turn would cause harassment or humiliation. In the absence of the aforesaid averment, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order.

The writ petition is dismissed.