^ } IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIseARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [S] N0. '^(^& /2011 PETITIONER: Vs RESPON&ENTS: \^ ^-"^ 1. 2. B.S. Bariha, son of Shri T. Bariha, aged about 44 years, Occupation-Service, Presently posted as Assistant Labour Officer, Raigarh, resident of F8, Panjri Plant, Near Mini Stadium, Raigarh District Raigarh (C6) ^ . 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through; the Secretary, Department of Labor, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Labour Commissioner. State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 3. Shri V.R. Patel, son <& age not known to the petitioner, Occupation- Service, presently posted in the office of Labour Officer, Ambikapur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE Z26 OF THE CONSTXTUTION OF IN&IA PARTICULAR OF THE PETITIONER: As shown in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONbENTS: As shown in the cause title. •^ AFi^. ^i^Eg;tfS. •&-j^t, \v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.785 OF 2011 B.S. Bariha Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 27th day of July, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 1-2-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Raigarh to Ambikapur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is working in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raigarh, has been transferred and posted as . Labour Officer, Ambikapur and the respondent No.3, who is Assistant Labour Officer, holding class III non-gazetted post in the Labour Department, has been transferred and posted in place of the petitioner in spite of the fact that as per the rules, the respondent No.3 is not eligible to discharge the duties of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order of transfer is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the petitioner has been transferred from the present place of posting within a short span of six months and the impugned order has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.3. Thus, this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there were repeated complaints against the petitioner with regard to performance of the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed several times to improve his work and perform the duties properly, but there is no improvement on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, after obtaining approval from the Minister, Department of Labour, the impugned order was passed. The same is just & proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, 6. There is no allegation on the part of the petitioner that there was any mala fide exercise of power or the officer has no competence to pass the impugned order and/or the impugned order was violative of statutory rules and regulations except that the order was passed within six months to accommodate the respondent No.3. It is well settled that if an employee is transferred some other employee is posted in his place and this exercise cannot be held as mala fide exercise of power. 7. With regard to transfer of an employee on the basis of complaints is concerned, the principle of law on this issue is well settled that if there are certain complaints against an employee without holding any enquiry the transfer of such employee can be made in the public interest as well as in administrative exigency. On the similar issue, the Supreme Court, in Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath and another , held as under: "14. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of ' (2004) 4 SCC 245 in effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for 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. The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matterforthe employerto consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution 'for the problems faced by the administration." 8. In Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others2, the Supreme Court observed as under : "8.....1n our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances ofan individual case...." 9. It is further well settled that-transfer/posting is an jncidence of service. The Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to establish any of the aforestated grounds. The employee may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and'administrative exigency. Further, it is for the Government to post another person if any vacancy arises on account of (2007) 8 SCC 150 B i»nii-'uTi'l transfer/posting of an employee. Thus, the impugned order warrants no interference. 10. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; there is no merit in the case. 11, For the reasons as aforestated, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agmhotri Judge h WWf\