. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11431 of 2008 SELESTIN HANSDA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitoner : M/S Tej Bahadur Singh Gyan Shankar & Brajesh Kr. For the State : AAG III For Respondent no. 4 : Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi ----------- 4. 19.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for private Respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a short submission of frequent transfer of the petitioner from one place to another commencing from 5.10.2004, 30.6.2005, 18.6.2006, 28.6.2007 and finally on 30.6.2008. He relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1955 (B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka & ors.). The submission, therefore, is that frequent transfers themselves are evidence of arbitrariness in action. Learned counsel for the State from Annexure-F to the counter affidavit defending the last order of transfer dated 30.6.2008 urged that the petitioner had been recommended for departmental proceedings on account of certain alleged financial misdemeanor. The transfer is in pursuance thereof. Counsel for Respondent no. 4 urged that he has since joined the posting at Saran at Chapra in place of the petitioner. The Apex Court at paragraph 6 of the judgment relied upon in the case of B. Varadha Rao (supra) has held as 2 follows: “6. One cannot but deprecate that frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to a Government servant and drive him to desperation. It disrupts the education of his children and leads to numerous other complications and problems and results in hardship and demoralization. It therefore follows that the policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally……….” Transfer is an incidence of service but when exercised in a manner where it reflects arbitrariness, the defence of the State that the petitioner did not challenge his earlier orders of frequent transfer does not appeal this Court. Obviously the petitioner was aware of the limitation of the Government servant to challenge the orders of transfer. The contention of the State that he has been recommended for departmental action and the Respondent-State transferred him does not appeal to the Court also. If a Government servant has misconducted himself and he is simply transferred on that ground, perhaps, he may be emboldened to commit that misconduct again if he is not disciplined by merely ordering the transfer to repeat his misconduct at the transferred place. In the facts of this case, the aforesaid defence of the State does not appeal to this Court. The petitioner has been transferred frequently at very short interval. This can hardly be conducive to good 3 governance and performance of the petitioner for reasons already noticed by the Supreme Court. This Court, therefore, finds it difficult to sustain the order of transfer dated 30.6.2008. The situation is the creation of the Respondent-State. It is for them to find the solution of Respondent no. 4 and for which neither the petitioner nor Respondent no. 4 can be allowed to suffer financially provided they were making themselves available for duty but no duty is taken from them. Before parting with this order, this Court observes that there is no material before this Court suggestive of any departmental action against the petitioner. If any departmental action has been taken against the petitioner by way of suspension/departmental proceedings etc., quite obviously the order dated 30.6.2008 quashed by the present order of this Court shall have to be read appropriately in that context. If the petitioner files a representation for arrears of salary, the same shall be considered by the authority appropriately in law and disposed off expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of order. The writ application stands allowed with the aforesaid observation. The order dated 30.6.2008 stands quashed with the limitation as aforesaid. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)