WP(C) 4504/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr . B. Benerjee, learned G.A., Arunchal Pradesh and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned couns el for the respondent No. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-E order dated 06.09.08 transferr ing the petitioner from Ziro to Koloriang. Upon reference to Annexure-A letter d ated 20.08.08 addressed to the Chief Minister, A.P. by the President, Indian Nat ional Trade Union Congress (INTUC). It is the case of the petitioner that becaus e of allegation made in the letter, the Chief Minister has taken recourse to tra nsfer of the petitioner. Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submit s that since the transfer has not been issued in public interest, same is liable to be interfered with. Mr. B. Benerjee, learned G.A., Arunchal Pradesh, on the other hand submi ts that since there is complaint against the petitioner not only from INTUC but also from other organizations, which reflects that the petitioner had transferre d 185 staff under him due to political consideration. The authority in considera tion of the attending facts and circumstances, decided to transfer the petitione r from Ziro to Koloriang. According to him the resulted affect of the transfer o rder dated 06.09.08 will not be practical shifting of the petitioner from Ziro to Koloriang. However, he fairly submits that in due course the petitioner may have to leave Ziro. In other words, the petitioner in spite of the transfer orde r dated 06.09.08 will remain at Ziro since the concerned office of Kolorian is p resently attached at Ziro. Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, upon reference to the affidavit in opposition, submits that pursuant to the order of transfer the pet itioner has assumed charge at Ziro on 16.10.08. He submits that since there is n othing adverse against the respondent No. 5 and he is not instrumental towards i ssuance of the order of transfer, he may not be made to suffer. He has also pla ced reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2004 (2) GLT 421 (Majibu r Rahman vs. State of Assam and others) so as to contend that the authority is c ompetent to transfer the officer on the basis of the complaint made against him. The records have revealed that the Chief Minister of the State approved the transfer of the petitioner from Ziro to Koloriang. However, the order was mo dified at his instance. It was proposed that the petitioner should be allowed to remain at Ziro till March, 2009. Thereafter, it was once again decided to trans fer the petitioner from Ziro to Koloriang. The records have revealed that apart from the complaint petition filed by INTUC, there are complaints from other orga nizations. In fact, the Chief Engineer (Power) by his letter dated 04.09.08 add ressed to the Secretary (Power), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh made a proposal for transfer of the petitioner. In the letter it was indicated as to how the took re course to transfer and posting of 185 work-charge staff vide order dated 04.08.0 8. It was conveyed that under no circumstance, transfer of such huge employees w as justified and that such transfer and posting was also not in the public inter est. Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the pet itioner has been transferred on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the auth ority ought to have afforded the petitioner the opportunity of being heard. He s ubmits that the authority could have proceeded against the petitioner by way of departmental proceeding instead of taking recourse to impugned order of transfe r. It is in this context, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 h as referred to the aforesaid decision in Majibur Rahman in which the this Court held that the order of transfer could be passed on the basis of various factors including suitability of a person which requires formation of subjective opinion . In the decision distinction between punitive transfer and order of transf er has also been pointed out. It appears that the proposal was made to retain the petitioner at Ziro upto Marc h, 2009 and the order was also issued to that effect. As noted above, irrespect ive of the impugned order of transfer, the petitioner for some time will remain at Ziro since the particular office meant for Koloriang is partly attached at Ziro. However, in due course the petitioner has to go to Koloriang. If that be so and if the petitioner was satisfied with his temporary retention at Ziro upt o March, 2009, the present state of affairs will serve the purpose. In view of the above, the respondent may consider his (respondent No. 5) retention in the office located at Ziro till March, 2009 after which, as submi tted, the petitioner will move to Koloriang, if situation demands and for that m atter the office is shifted to Koloriang. However, it is made clear that the ret ention of the petitioner at Ziro in the office meant for Koloriang will be depen dent on the decision of the authority to retain the office at Ziro. In other wor ds, if the office is shifted, the petitioner will also have to move to Koloriang . The matter is left open to the said discretion of the authority. The writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned o rder of transfer.