IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5079 of 2010 1. KAMENDRA KUMAR 'KAMESH' S/O GOPAL SHARAN SINGH R/O VILL.- CHHATA, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTT.- PATNA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, KADWA, DISTT.- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR ----------- 4/ 27/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of his transfer dated 19.3.2010 from Katihar to Gaya. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the recitals in the impugned order it is apparent that the transfer was in the form of punishment. There had been no proceedings indicting him and holding him guilty after enquiry. He has been condemned unheard and visited with a punishment. Learned counsel for the State rightly points out that the transfer was considered conducive to good administration in an otherwise vitiated office atmosphere. The law stands explained in (2004) 4 SCC 245 (UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus JANARDHAN DEBANATH AND - 2 - ANOTHER) that if the transfer is considered expedient in the interest of good administration in a vitiated officer atmosphere that does not operate to the prejudice of the employee as he cannot be visited with any adverse consequences in service career unless and until a proper proceeding is held in accordance with law to pronounce him guilty. This was completely different from the limited consideration of the alleged incident leading the administrator to opine that it was both in the interest of the person concerned and good administration to avoid a vitiated office atmosphere to transfer a person. The petitioner has remained stationed at Katihar on his own showing since 2004 till the present order of transfer. That is an aspect which also cannot be lost sight of. This Court holds that the order dated 19.3.2010, insofar as it refers to any conduct of the petitioner cannot be held to cast any aspersion or to ascribe him a guilt of misbehaviour or otherwise which are matters to be proved in a proper proceeding after due liberty to him. The impugned order is therefore read down as one simply issued in the interest of administration to maintain a unvitiated atmosphere in the office both in the interest of the - 3 - petitioner and others in the office. With the aforesaid observations the writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)