Ul 'U • R!l ie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri ITI! Shanti Lal Sahu, Aged 34 years, S/o Shri Gahiru Ram Sahu, Posted as Patwari at P.H. No.15, 'ehsi! Gurur, District Durg (CG). R/o Viiiage Kaneri, Tehsi! Gurur, District Durg (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throush the Secretap/, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, 2. The Coilector (Land Record), District Durg (C-G). 3. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Sub Dlvision, Baiod, Dlstrict Durs (CG). 4. Suk!ai Thakur, Patv.'ari, P.H.No.S Viiiage Rarntara, Tehsii Gurur, Disfrict Durg (CG). 5. Bharat Lai Sahu, Patv/ari President of Tehsil Patwari Sangh, Vitlage Kundani, Tehsi! Gurur, District Durg (CG). Present:- Shri R.K. Keshanf/ani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri An/ind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondenfs No.1 to 3. o (Passed on 5"' Aprij, 2007) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is v»'orkingas Pahvari in Patv/ari Halka No.15. On the basis of some complaim, the petitioner was posted in Patwarl Haika No.S v/ithin the same Sub Division vide order dated 21-3-2007 (Annexure- P/1), passed bythe Sub Divisiona! Officer (Revenue), Baiod. 2) Learned counsel further submits that the main contention of the petitioner is that no transfer on the basis of complaint can be made without holding proper enquiry. 3) The contention of the petitioner is noticed to be dismissed on the simple ground that it is weli settled princip'ie of !aw that if on a complaint, an employer fee!s that a detailed enquiry is not required to impose any penafry, if the na'ture of the compiiant is not that serious, the empioyer can resoive the issue by transfemng an empioyee by one piace to other piace. In the present petition, the petitioner has not been removed from one Division to another Division, but has been transferred from one Patwari Halka to other Patuvari Haika within the same Division. The second contention, that there is a ban on transfer for three years as per the transfer policy, is also not sustainabie as t'ne transfer policy is not mandatory, but regulatory and ths ciause 2(4) of the fransfer policy 2006-07 provides that as far as possibie a person should not be transferred for minimuiT! thre®years. The transfer shou!d be made on the basis of the preliminary enquiry of the complaint. in t'ne present cass preliminary enquiry was held wherein no notsce was required to be given to the petitioner. 4) !t is we!i settled that the transfer of an emplcyee can be made on the basis of the cornplaint. Transfers uniess they involve any such adverse impact or vislt the persons concerned with any pena! consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutlny, approach and assessment as In the case of dismissai, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude shouid be left with the department concerned to enforce discipiine, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essenfia! to maintain Gowri quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exlgencies to ensure smooth functioning ofthe administration. Forthe purposes of effectlng a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether the complaint was true, is unnecessary and what is needed is the pnma facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about ths occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon, the very purpose of transferring an employee in pubiic interest of exigencies of administration enforee decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. (See Union of Sndia and others vs. Janaidhan Debanath and another) {(2004) 4 SCC 245 atpage 5) It is aiso wel! settled principie of iaw that transfer is an incident of sen/ice and it is for employer to decide as to where a particular officer/ employee be posted, keeping in view pubiic jnferest as wel! as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdictlon to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proveci ma/a ffde, non-competence of aufhority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being conformity with the :'u!es and regulations. 6) in view of the foregoing, this petiSion stands dismissed. No order as to costs. _ ____— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge