IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13418 of 2010 RATNA KUMARI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 24.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2010 by which she has been transferred from the District General Section of the Collectorate at Gopalganj to Bhorey circle in the District of Gopalganj itself stated to be a distance of approximately 50 kms. Learned counsel submits that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.8.2010 with regard to an incident that occurred in the office premises of the Deputy Collector and during which the petitioner and her husband are alleged to have used unparliamentary language. The petitioner denies the allegations. It is next submitted that the order of transfer is therefore punitive. The petitioner is sought to be punished for questioning certain actions of the Deputy Collector which accordingly to the petitioner were not inconsonance with law. Certain others who have remained posted in the Collectorate for seven years 2 have not been transferred. The petitioner being a lady deserves a more sympathetic treatment. Counsel for the State opposes the application to submit that it merits no interference. Transfer and posting are the privilege of the administrator. The order of transfer dated 7.8.2010 states that it is being made on the ground that the persons mentioned therein had remained statitioned at one place for more than five years and therefore they were being transferred on administrative ground. The order of transfer per se casts no aspersion on the petitioner and does not reflect any imposition of punishment by way of a transfer. To that extent, this Court finds no merit in the writ application. In so far as the second ground is concerned that the transfer was in fact punitive in consequence of the show cause notice issued and for which an F.I.R. is also stated to have been lodged by the authorities against the petitioner and her husband, suffice it to say that an alleged act of misdemeanor leading to punishment undoubtedly requires appropriate proceedings followed by a final order. But if for any administrative reason, the transfer is considered conducive to administrative 3 discipline so as to keep the office atmosphere un- vitiated both in the interest of the transferred employees and others, that is an entirely different matter. Such an order of transfer does not mandate that it can be issued only after a proceeding is held. The Supreme Court in (2004) 4 SCC 245 dealing with a similar order of transfer issued for certain alleged incident including use of foul language declining interference with the order of transfer has held in Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 as follows:- “12. That brings us to the other question as to whether the use of the expression "undesirable" warranted an enquiry before the transfer. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the respondents on a decision of this Court in Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India (AIR 1964 SC 449, para 21, p. 456) to contend that whenever there is a use of the word "undesirable" it casts a stigma and it cannot be done without holding a regular enquiry. The submission is clearly without substance. The said case relates to use of the expression "undesirable" in an order affecting the continuance in service by way of discharge. The decision has therefore no application to the facts of the present case. The manner, nature and extent of exercise to be undertaken by Courts/Tribunal in a case to adjudge whether it casts a stigma or constitutes one by way of punishment would also very much depend upon the consequences flowing from the order and as to whether it adversely affected any service conditions-status, service prospects financially and same yardstick, norms or standards cannot 4 be applied to all category of cases.Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visits 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. 13. Additionally, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the Union of India that as indicated in the special leave petition itself there was no question of any loss of seniority or promotional prospects. These are the aspects which can be gone into in an appropriate proceeding, if at all there is any adverse order in the matter of seniority or promotion. It was also submitted that transfer was within the same circle i.e. the North Eastern Circle and, therefore, the question of any seniority getting affected by the transfer prima facie does not arise. 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 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 5 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 respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.” There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)