IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14308 of 2011 Md.Mohiuddin, son of late Md. Samsuddin, resident of village- Lakhno, P.O. Chakan, P.S. Chandauti, District- Gaya. …………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Regional Dy. Director, Health Services, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 5. Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical officer, Darbhanga. 6. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gaya. ………………. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate For the State: Mr. A.K. Upadhya, S.C. 20. ------------ 2. 14.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.8.2011 passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services by which he has cancelled the earlier order of transfer dated 30.6.2011 of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that on 14.5.2011, he filed a representation for his transfer through proper channel to the Surgency of Gaya on the ground of illness of his wife, who was undergoing treatment at Patna and Gaya. The representation of the petitioner was forwarded to the Director-in-Chief, Health 2 Services who, by his order dated 30.6.2011, transferred the petitioner against a vacant post of clerk in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Gaya. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved by the Civil Surgeon, Darbhanga on 29.7.2011 and his joining was accepted at Gaya on 3.8.2011. Subsequently the impugned order dated 16.8.2011 was passed stating that the earlier order of transfer dated 30.6.2011 transferring the petitioner is cancelled. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, the stand taken is that the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 5.5.2011 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The said proceeding was disposed of by order dated 22.7.2011 after issuing a warning to the petitioner and revoking his suspension. It is the further stand in the counter affidavit that on 1.7.2011 the Director-in-Chief, Health Services issued a letter to the Civil Surgeon, Darbhanga stating that by his letter dated 30.5.2011, he had forwarded the representation of the petitioner for transfer and it has been learnt by the Director-in-Chief that the petitioner is under suspension and, accordingly, the Civil Surgeon was directed to report as to how he had forwarded the application of the petitioner during the period of suspension. Thereafter, after seeking consent of the Principal Secretary, Health Department the transfer order of the petitioner was 3 cancelled by the order dated 16.8.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of transfer of the petitioner having taken its effect as he has joined at the place of transfer, the authorities have no power to cancel the said transfer order. In support of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Jyotsna Kumari v. State of Bihar and others: 2000(2) PLJR 332, in paragraph No.12 of which it has been held as follows: “12. Now it is a settled law that once an order of transfer issued and acted upon, it spent its force. Thereafter, no substantive part remains to be stayed or rescinded and any order to that effect is redundant.” The said decision relies upon an earlier decision of the same learned single Judge in the case of Mahmood Azam Siddiqui vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.: 2000 (3) PLJR 139. Following the said decisions, learned counsel relies upon two other decisions of this Court passed in the case of Vidya Sagar 4 Singh & ors vs. The State of Bihar & ors.: 2009 (1) PLJR 512 and in case of Pravin Kumar Sinha vs. The State of Bihar and ors.: 2009 (4) PLJR 717. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in any view of the matter on the day the petitioner had joined, i.e., on 3.8.2011, the suspension order had already been revoked. The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ground for transfer being illness of the wife of the petitioner and that having been accepted, the same position remains even now and thus the impugned order of transfer is fit to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned order dated 16.8.2011 does not disclose any ground and the authorities cannot add any reason in the counter affidavit. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation of the petitioner for his transfer having been filed through proper channel, the fact of the suspension was known to the authorities and thus the same cannot be a ground for cancelling the order of transfer. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner having suppressed the fact of his suspension 5 while filing the representation, the same is alone a good ground for cancellation of the transfer order and the impugned order is, thus, fit to be upheld by this Court. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties. It is open to the respondents to change the headquarters of an employee under suspension from one place to another as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, but the question is as to whether such power has been exercised after due application of mind. It is evident from the letter dated 1.7.2011 of the Director-in-Chief, Health Services addressed to the Civil Surgeon, Darbhanga that he had been kept in dark regarding the suspension of the petitioner when his representation was forwarded to him. As a matter of fact, the Civil Surgeon was not expected to have forwarded any such representation of a suspended employee, as is evident from the explanation sought from him in the said letter. If at all any such representation could have been considered it should have been for change of headquarters from one place to another. The petitioner had admittedly suppressed the fact of his being under suspension in his representation. The mere fact that it was forwarded by his superior authority does not change the situation, as it was for the 6 petitioner to have disclosed all the facts while praying for his transfer from one place to another. The transferring authority, namely, the Director-in-Chief having found that the petitioner had been transferred while under suspension at the relevant time had made a proper enquiry in the matter and thereafter passed the order of cancellation of transfer of the petitioner on 16.8.2011. The said action appears to be fully justified. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that reasons not mentioned in the impugned order cannot be added by way of counter affidavit, is without any legal force. The order of transfer or cancellation of any such order is a purely administrative order and the administrative authorities are not obliged to assign any reason either in the order of transfer or for its cancellation. Such requirement is only in the case of quasi- judicial order, which order must indicate the reasons on which it has been passed and can be defended only on the same. It is open to the administrative authorities to justify their purely administrative orders on the basis of the materials available on the record. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer order having taken its effect, the same could not have been cancelled cannot be accepted in the 7 facts and circumstances of the case as under ordinary situation no transfer order is passed in the case of a suspended employee rather an order to change the headquarter is passed. In such circumstances an employee does not discharge his duty during the period of his suspension and is not expected even to sign the Attendance Register during that period, but the only requirement is to remain at the Headquarter while he was under suspension. Moreover fraud vitiates everything, and the petitioner having suppressed the fact of his suspension can get no benefit in the said situation. So far as the ground of transfer of the petitioner on account of illness of his wife is concerned, the same has no relevance in the present matter, as it was not a simple transfer of an employee rather the transfer order has been obtained by keeping the transferring authority in the dark and thus the said reason is not germane in the present matter. The other submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are also not acceptable in view of the fact that the action of the petitioner amounts to playing a fraud upon the authorities and thus the order cancelling the transfer of the petitioner is not fit to be quashed. Hence, on a consideration of the facts and 8 circumstances of the case, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order dated 16.8.2011 passed by the Director- in-Chief, Health Services. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that considering the genuine ground regarding the illness of his wife on the basis of which the petitioner had filed a representation for his transfer, this order may not come in the way of the authorities in considering a fresh representation that the petitioner may file before the authorities for his transfer. It is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to file a fresh representation for his transfer, which shall be considered by the authorities of the State in accordance with law. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )