© U(A -STg? ^/ .^y/^ "^y ~%?"^ •^/^ /J^' f^>- ^ %- .P.(S) No. "S^-5'5 Of2011 .^:l Santosh Nagesh S/o Late Shri Harirara Nagesh, aged about SSyears, Siksha Karmi Class III Primary School Kasripara, Janpad Panchyat Jagdalpur (C.G}(Wrong!y raentioned as Santrosh in impugned order) Sanjeev Kumar Das s/o Shri Kamal Singh Das aged about 34 years Siksha Karmi Class III Priraary . School Bhadraguda, 3 ^y/^ Bhal Avinash Das s/o Late Shri Prabhakar isha Das Aged about 34 years Siksha Karini Class III Primary School Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur(C.G) Raidas Kashyap s/o Shri Gurudas Aged about 33 years Siksha Karmi Class III Primaiy School Araliguda , Jaripad Panchyat Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur(C.G) ^^^§\ >'^&.1 ''w\ \ '•S9\ ^ >- fs ' \-y..\ ''••"'^7^ ""'^vswsi^^r'"' ^idf' l.State of Chhattisgarh i/ •-5co s Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawari Raipur (C.G:) 2 Chief Execurive OfBeer Janpad ^Panchyat. Jagdalpur (C.G) i^ •^ 0-i'Al-V'- B^iA hw nA-'J A ^-•i--<^;- ET. B ^ ""^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WMT PETmON (S) No. 3759 of2011 Santaih Nagesh & Others. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Another. WRIT PETmON UNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Afinihotri. J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitiouer. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 14" day ofJuly, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 06.07.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioners have been transferred fi'om tiieir present place ofpostmg to other place. 2. The main grievance ofthe petitioners is that the petitioners have been transferred on the basis ofcomplaint made by some pereon against the petitioners being negtigent in their duties and indulgence in political affairs. Shri Shrivastava, leamed counsel for the petitioners further submits that no opportunity ofhearing was afforded to the petitioners nor any enquiry was eondueted. Thus, the impugned order traiisfen'ing the petitioners on tfae basis ofalleged camplaint, is bad and vitiated. 3. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. I submits fhat there was a complaint against all the petitioners with regard to Ifaeir indulgence in political activities and further, they were negligent in their duties. Thus, the permanent Education Conamttee vide its meeting dated 06.07.2011 has resolved to transfer the petitioners from their present place of posting to maintain the working atmosphere ofthe institutions. 4. Having heani leamed eounsel for tfae petitioners and perosed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute that there are serious allegation agaiast fhe petitioners, whieh is evident from the impugned transfer order itself. 5. Law in this respect is well settled that, "if there is any complamt ^ainst an official, the State Govemment is certainly within its 1 ^S^.. Y'v y,fta~- ' '%, f ^^'SSS-i 1 J S '•», "-r*;': ^-' 6. 7-- jurisdiction to fransfer such an employee". On the similar issue, the Supreme Court, in Union oflndia andanother v. Jwiardhan Debanath & anothei^, held as under: "14. The allegations made agamst the respondents are ofserious natu.re, and the canduct attributed is certainty unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question •which can be gone into m a d^artmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfor, the questson ofholding cm enquiry tofind out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an empkyee is umiecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfactiwi of the authority concemed on the contemporary reports csbout the occwrence compkcined ofand if the requirement, as submitted by leamed counselfor the respondents, ofhoUing an elaborate enquiry is to be msistedupon the very purpose oftransferring an empkyee in pubUc mterest or esdgencies of admmistration to enforce decorum and ensure probity •would get frustrated. The question -whether the respondents could be tran^erred to a different division is a matter for the emphyer to consider dependmg upon the admimstrative necessities and the extent of solution for theproblems faced by the admimstration. (See alsoMohd. Masood Ahmad v. StateofU-P. & Others^) It is turtfaer weU-seftled that transfer is an incidenee ofservice and it is for the enyloyer to decide asto where a particular ofiScer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as weU as admmstrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved mala ftde, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in confarmity with the roles and regulations. The petitioners/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of pubUc interest and 1S2004)4SCC2^ 2 (2007)8 SCC 150 \&^ —-? 0-6 8. administrative exigency. (SeeE.P.Royappa v. State ofTamilNadu and anotherf, Shilpi Bose ft4rs.) and others v. State ofBihar & another4, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kourr and other/, ChiefCommercial Manager, South Central Raihvay, Secunderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others smdAirports Authority oflndia v. Rajeev Ratcm Pand^ & Others'). In case on hand, I do not find any reason to interfere vrith the transfer order, as the employer is fully coinpetent to transfer an employee, ifan atmospbere in the wwking place is vitiated on accoimt ofthe eonduct of some of the employees. The employer can choose either traiisferring Ifae employee or takmg steps against the employee, ifthe complaint is ofserious nature. Without going into the nature oflfae eomplaint, since the Government had chosen to transfer the petitioners who are aUeged to be negligent in fheir duties and have iadulged in political affairs, the Court should restrain itselffrom interfering when such discretion is exercise by fhe State Oovemment, in the interest ofproper woridng eondition. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, tiie \wnt petition, being devoid ofmerit, is disnussed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit