HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PET!T!QN (§l N9. 8$8 OF 3009 PETITIOMER Rahul Kumar Bhediya. aged about 34 years, Sid Kamta Prasad Bhediya, at present working as a Pharmacist Grade-H. Community HeaMx Centre. Bhanupratappur, Distric‘ Kanker (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary. Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (CG). Director, Pubiic Health and Family Welfare Department. Raip‘ur (CG). ' Chief Medical and Health Oflioer, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (CG). 4. Dr. Anil Pashine, Block Medical Oiticer. Community Health Centre. Bhanupratappur, Utter Bastar, Kanker. 5. Block Medical Oflicer. Community Health Centre, Antagarh. Uttar Bastar, Kanker (CG). A RE$PONQENTS (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench :' Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State. R (Passed on this 11 day of- February, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order 20-1 -2009 (Annexure-Pi3) by which he has been transferred from Community Health Centre. Bhanupratappur to Primary Health Centre, Kiskodo, on account of complaint made against him with regard to his disobedience towards the orders passed by the higher authorities and to malign the reputation of the department. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the wife of . the petitioner has made an application before the respondent authorities for providing documents under the ARight to information Act and as a revengeful measure; the respondentshare harassing the petitioner and ’{passed the impugned transfer order on the basis of false and concocted complaint. The transfer order has been passed during the mid-session and __’ , ‘t. $ that too during the ban period to accommodate one Pharmacist Grade-l! namely, Dinesh Chandrakar. Per contra. Ieamed counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order. 3) 4) l have heard learned counset appearing for the parties. perused the pteadings and the documents appended thereto. 5) tt is welt settled that the transfer of an empioyee can be made on the basis of complaints. Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visit the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge. reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline. decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration. ‘ For the purposes of effecting a transfer. the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether the complaint was true, is unnecessary and what is needed is the pn‘ma facie satisfaction of the authority concemed on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon. the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. (See Union of lndia and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and another‘). i 6) Further, it is welt settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping» in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in the cases of proved male tide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. None of the above grounds are available to the petitioner. T) in view of the foregoing, the writ petition is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the rr’iotion stage itself. Sd/- J 8) Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Satish K. Agnihotn r Judge Gowri ‘ 1 (2004) 4 SOC 246 at i ,L; i