WP(C) 1152/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr S Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr BJ Ghosh, lear ned Govt. Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr M Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respo ndent No.5. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the contesting parties and as th e records in original have been placed before the Court, having regard to the su bject matter involved, final orders in the writ petition are being passed at the motion stage. The challenge in the present writ petition is against an order dated 13. 2.2008 by which the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Labour Insp ector in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Guwahati to the post o f Labour Inspector, Dudhnoi. The respondent No.5 who was working at Dudhnoi has been brought in place of the petitioner by the very same order dated 13.2.2008. It may be noticed at this stage that the order dated 13.2.2008 has been modified by a subsequent order dated 15.3.2008 by which the petitioner has been allowed to hold the additional charge of the post of Labour Inspector, Bongaigaon. The transfer order dated 13.2.2008 has been assailed by the petitioner a s being violative of the Government/Office Memorandum in force which prescribes a tenure of three years for an officer in any particular station. The petitioner has not completed three years of service in Guwahati. Accordingly, prior approv al of the Chief Minister to the said proposal is required to be obtained in term s of the Office Memorandum in force which requirement, according to the petition er, had not been fulfilled. The records in original placed before the Court by Mr BJ Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate indicates that three incumbents i.e. one Smt. Nizara Hazarika, La bour Inspector, Nagaon; one Smt. T. Deori, Labour Inpspector, Narayanpur and the respondent No.5 who was working as Labour Inspector at Dudhnoi had filed repres entations for their transfer to Guwahati. This was sometime in the month of July , 2007. From the records placed before the Court, it is evident that two incumbe nts i.e. Sri Pranjit Talukdar and Sri Debojit Kalita had completed three years o f service in Guwahati. The remaining seven incumbents holding the post of Labour Inspector at Guwahati had not completed the aforesaid tenure of three years. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been in Guwahati since 24.2.2006 and amongst the persons who had not completed three years of tenure in Guwahati, there are three other persons who have had a longer tenure than the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, a suggestion was mooted that Smt. Nizara Hazari ka and the respondent No.5 who had completed more than five years of service at the respective stations should be transferred to Guwahati against the two incumb ents who had served in Guwahati for more than three years. The records also indi cate that a decision was taken to transfer the respondent No.5 against the post in which Sri Debojit Kalita was working at Guwahati. Sri Kalita has been in Guwa hati since 14.7.2004. The aforesaid proposal was, however, to be made effective in the month of December, 2007 when the transfer season was to commence. On 23.7 .2007, the departmental minister approved the said proposed action. However, from the records placed before the Court it is evident that on 11.9.2007, telephonic instructions were issued by the departmental Commissioner & Secretary for transfer of the petitioner against the post of Labour Inspector , Dudhnoi which the respondent No.5 was holding. The said proposal was submitted on 12.9.2007 to the departmental Commissioner & Secretary with the suggestion t hat the approval of the Chief Minister may be taken as the petitioner had not co mpleted three years of service in Guwahati. On the said proposal, a note was rec orded by the departmental Commissioner & Secretary that many complaints have bee n received against the petitioner by the Minister, Labour & Employment and, ther efore, the petitioner should be transferred to Dudhnoi in place of the responden t No.5. However, in the note of the departmental Commissioner & Secretary, the p articulars or the details of the complaints received against the petitioner or e ven the brief nature thereof has not been indicated. The file was, thereafter, p ut up before the departmental Minister. The departmental Minister did not think it appropriate to record any observation with regard to the complaints stated t o have been received by him against the petitioner; even the nature of the said complaints/ allegations are not indicated. He merely put up the file before the Chief Minister for his approval. This was on 20.9.2007. The Chief Minister there after approved the proposal on 27.11.2007. As panchayat election in the State wa s due and the code of conduct came into force from 28.11.2007, the proposal for inter-se transfer of the petitioner and the respondent No.5 was not given effect to. After the panchayat election was over, the impugned order dated 13.2.2008, which has been modified by the order dated 15.3.2008, was issued. The power of the Court to interfere with the matters relating to transfe r and posting of Government servants is an extremely limited power. The contours of the said power need not be reiterated in this order, save and except to put on record that a malafide act of transfer, or any such action which is contrary to the professed norms would be open for judicial scrutiny and interference. The Courts have always taken the view that it is the employer State who is the best authority to decide as to which particular officer should be transferred and po sted in which station. However, if such transfer is to be made by the State for extraneous reasons or reasons not connected with the needs of the administration or such actions are plainly opposed to the norms in force, judicial interferenc e must be made to ensure a more responsive administration. The aforesaid view of the Court with regard to its powers is consistent with the observation of the A pex Court in para 7 of the decision in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs- Gob ardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402, which has been relied upon by Mr M Bhu yan, learned counsel for the respondents. In the present case, the facts are glaring. The respondent No.5 was init ially to be transferred in place of another person i.e. Sri Debojit Kalita who h ad served in Guwahati for more than three years. The decision making process in respect of the aforesaid transfer was completed and only the transfer was to be implemented once the transfer season commences. At this stage, some telephonic c onversation took place between the departmental Commissioner and the lower autho rities and instead of the aforesaid final decision with regard to the inter-se t ransfer of the respondent No.5 and Sri Debojit Kalita, a proposal was put up for transfer of the petitioner in place of Debojit Kalita. The justification for th e aforesaid action is to be found in the note of the departmental Commissioner & Secretary who had put on record that complaints had been received by the Minist er against the petitioner which required the petitioner to be moved out of Guwah ati. What are the details of such complaints or even the brief nature thereof ha ve not been stated in the note of the departmental Commissioner & Secretary to e nable the Court to co-relate the same to the needs of a good administration. Not only that when the file reached the table of the departmental Minister, the dep artmental Minister also did not think it necessary to put on record even the nat ure of the complaints received against the petitioner though such complaints wer e instrumental in the proposal for his transfer in place of Debojit Kalita. As a lready noticed, the departmental Minister had merely endorsed the file to the Ch ief Minister for his approval. The core fact in the present case has remained unexplained by the record s in original placed before the Court. What were the specific reasons which nece ssitated a re-opening of the final decision regarding inter-se transfer of the r espondent No.5 and Debojit Kalita are not indicated in the said records. While i t is not necessary for the administrator to put on record the entire details of the complaints received against the petitioner, the needs of a good and responsi ve administration make it imperative that the rudimentary facts in support there of, particularly the nature of the allegations or complaints must find a mention in the course of the decision making process so as to enable a judicial scrutin y of the said process, if required. The absence of the requisite details with re gard to the complaints received and the re-opening of the final decision in the circumstances noted above, had made it imperative for the department to justify its action on the basis of cogent materials. The same not having been done, the conclusion that has to be reached is irresistible. The impugned transfer does no t appear to be prompted by reasons connected with the needs of a good administra tion. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court is of the view that the present wou ld be a fit case for exercise of its otherwise limited power of interference. Th e impugned order dated 13.2.2008 read with the order dated 15.3.2008 are, theref ore, set aside. Before parting with the case, the Court would like to observe that the r ecords in original placed before the Court indicate that a decision had been tak en to transfer the respondent No.5 from Dudhnoi to Guwahati as the said responde nt had completed five years of service in Dudhnoi. Interference made by the Cour t with the inter-se transfer of the petitioner and the respondent no.5, it must be clarified, is not on account of any error in the said decision. The ground on which such interference has been made is relatable to the particular post to wh ich the respondent No.5 is required to be transferred. As the decision to transf er the respondent No.5 to Guwahati had already been finalised as evident from th e records, it will now be incumbent on the State to implement the said decision in a proper and effective manner keeping in mind the needs of the administration . The writ petition consequently is allowed as indicated above.