0; l;0r IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rC.G.1 WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^:}l11^ / 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^- ^"' • ^ ^-'.- .. .- ^^ ^' ^i? '^^ Smt. C.Minj W/o Late Prakash Ekka Aged-about 49 years, Mahila Swasthya Karyakarta, Up Swasthya Kendra, Shivpur Charcha, Distt.- Korea [C.G.] VERSUS ^^;'. ,.^y 1.8tate of Chhattiagrh Through- Secretary, Health service, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] 2. Director, Health ser^ice, Raipur [C.G.] 3. Chief Medical and health service officer, Baikunthpur, Korea Distt.- Korea [C.G.] 4. Basant Rai, Parshad, Ward no.l, nagar Palika Parishad Shivpur Charcha, Distt.-Korea [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. ORDER OR DIRECTIONS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETmON <S) No. 7744 of201 1 Smt. C. Minj. ^2- RESPONDENT8 VER8US State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Amn Sao, Govemment Advocate forfhe State/respondent No. 1 to 3. ORDER (Passed on 16thdayrfDecember, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23.11.2011 (Amiexure P/2) whereby, the petitioner, working as Female Health Worker at Sub Health Centre, Shivpur, Charcha, District Koria, has been transferred and posted at Sub Health Centre; Aniamur (Baikunthpur)^ District Koria. 2. Shri Patel, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioxier is working as Female Health Worker at Sub Health Centre; Shivpun Charcha; District Koria. Tlie petitioner has been transferred and posted at Amarpur (Baikunthpur) merely on the ground that there was sonie complaint against the petitioner by the ward councilor, Shri Patel farther submite that the wife ofthe ward councilor is a Female Health Worker, posted m District Hospital Baikunthpur, thus, in order to accommodate his wife at the place of the petitionen the entire exercise has been done. The petitioner has further not been supplied with a copy ofthe complaint allegedly made by the ward councilor. /^- <- "\ ifi'".':.. 1 1 ^.J^Sh ^ '^... t 23 On pemsal of fhe impugned order dated 23.11.2011 (Amiexure P/2). it appears that the transfer has been made in administrative exigency. Even if the transfer has been made on the basis of complamt it is not necessary to always initiate action on the basis of complaint as it depends on the nature of the complaint. However, transferrmg an employee from one place to another place is penmssible. Law in this respect is well settled that "ifthere is any complaint against an official, the State Govemnient is certamly within its Jurisdiction to transfer such an employee". On tlie similar issue^ the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another/, held as under: "14. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainlv unbecoming. Whetlier fliere was any mis-behaviour is a question which can be gone mto iii a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of efFectmg a traiisfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was mis-behaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is umiecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction ofthe authority concemed on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and ifthe requirement, as subniitted by leamed couiisel for the respondents^ of holding an elaborate enquiiy is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferrmg an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decomm and ensure probity would get fmstrated. The question whether respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for fhe employer to consider dependmg upon the admimstrative (2004)43cc245 ~\ ..£A1 •••"^1 ^^.-•-.......•.;••' .'•^/ '•^^?^'..^?-' ;^.-... ^-^' necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the admmistration/9 ^f 5. The petitioner has not challenged tiie impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. violation of any statutory mles or regulations or lack of competence of the officen passing the impugned order. 6. It is well-settled that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for fhe 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 with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved mala fide^ non- competence ofauthority passing the transfer order and not being m conformity with the mles and regulations. The pctitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions ofservice mles, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in view of public interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu and anothef^, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kourw and others3 andMoM MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others). 7. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit (1974)43cc 3 ; (1995)33cc 270 '(2007) 8 SCC 150