IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10830 of 2008 SRI KANT PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4/ 16/9/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Despite two adjournments no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the State today submits that he has still not received any instructions. Transfer maters have their own urgency. Perhaps, for the reason that the petitioner has complied with the order of transfer when this Court on 24.7.2008 had observed that the joining of the petitioner at Aurangabad on the transferred place shall remain subject to the final orders that may be passed in the writ application, the respondents appear to be complacent that the petitioner had almost lost the case and that the Court was not inclined to grant him relief. The respondents have only themselves to blame for their complacency. True it is that transfer is a normal incidence of service. But, the power is not to be exercised in a manner to defeat the morale - 2 - of the government servant itself. Transfer on a short duration was also permissible if circumstances so warrant when the Court may be reluctant to interfere, if adequate materials are placed before it. In absence of the same, transfer at short duration without any justifiable grounds shall, per se, assume the nature of arbitrariness. The petitioner was transferred on 7.9.2007 to Arwal. Soon thereafter within approximately 11 months he has been re- transferred to Aurangabad on 30.6.2008. The order of transfer simply states that it was on administrative grounds. This ground does not impress the Court on the deliberate failure of the respondents in a case of the present nature unconcerned to file even an affidavit to substantiate the administrative ground. The writ application therefore has to be allowed. The order of transfer dated 30.6.2008 stands quashed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )