HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1832 of 2011 (S/S) Sunil Kumar. …Petitioner Vs. Inspector General of Prison and another. …Respondents. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State/respondents. Dated: December 15, 2011: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner, who is Bandi Rakshak in District Jail, Suddhowala, Dehradun has been transferred vide impugned order dated 28.10.2011 from District Jail, Dehradun to District Jail, Chamoli (Pursari). 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 30th August, 2011 he was on duty at the main gate of District Jail, Dehradun from 12:00 hrs. to 16:00 hrs. Thereafter, at about 4:15 p.m. (16:15 hrs.) two convicts, namely, Salim @ Nanhe and Ravi Baengali @ Ravi, who were serving life imprisonment, managed to escape from the jail. Preliminary enquiry was conducted in the matter. In the enquiry report dated 31.08.2011, two employees Ram Avatar and Madan Lal Pradhan were found guilty and were recommended for suspension. It is contended that in that enquiry report, there was nothing against the petitioner, but on 30.09.2011, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet and reply was called from the petitioner. 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact by way of punishment, the petitioner could not be transferred, as there is nothing against him, on which basis he could be transferred from one place to another. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the judgment of full bench of this Court in Smt. Damyanti Bisht vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in 2008 (2) U.D. 517, transfer order dated 28.10.2011 is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he cannot be held responsible for the escape of the convicts, because at the time of their escape from prison, the petitioner was not on duty. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is a Bandi Rakshak and he has to deal with am important task. This factual aspect of the matter is admitted that two convicts escaped from the prison, immediately after petitioner’s duty was over. Now, it is for the Superintendent of Jail, Dehradun to satisfy himself whether after the incident, he intends to keep the petitioner at District Jail, Dehradun or not. In the administrative orders, where the safety of the mass and safety of the prisoners is involved, the High Court should not, normally interfere with the transfer orders. 6. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was punished and by way of punishment he has been transferred, is concerned, this submission is incorrect, as the transfer order nowhere indicates that the petitioner is being transferred by way of punishment, rather in the transfer order it is merely mentioned that departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner will continue. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he could not be transferred in view of the judgment of full bench of this Court rendered in Smt. Damyanti Bisht’s case (supra) is 3 concerned, benefit of the same cannot be given to the petitioner as in that case, the full bench of this Court has held that no person could be transferred on administrative ground, unless the competent authority had arrived at and recorded his satisfaction upon due verification and confirmation about the existence of truthfulness of any one of the factors warranting the transfer of the person concerned. In the present case, transfer order does not speak that petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground. Even if the petitioner has been transferred on administration ground, non-mentioning of the satisfaction of the transferring authority in the transfer order, is not fatal in the present case, where two convicts, serving life imprisonment, have escaped from the jail. Jail authority is justified in transferring the petitioner, who was on duty just prior to the incident. 7. For the preceding reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. 8. Stay application (CLMA No. 13179 of 2011) stands rejected. (V.K. Bist, J.) 15.12.2011 NCM: