WA 338/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA (Amitava Roy, J) The order dated 21.10.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 5127/2011 whereby the pra yer for interim suspension of the transfer of the appellant/ writ petitioner vid e notification dated 23.9.2011 of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of A ssam, Higher Education (Tech.) Department has been rejected is in challenge in t he instant appeal. We have heard Mr N Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellant assis ted by Ms A Bhuyan, Advocate and Mr D Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, As sam appearing for the Education Department of the State. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessential to iss ue notice to the respondent No.3. The appellant/ writ petitioner had been appointed as Senior Instructor i n the Assam Engineering Institute, Guwahati in the year 1990 and on being promot ed thereafter to the post of Lecturer was eventually transferred and posted in t he said capacity in the Assam Engineering Institute, Guwahati (hereinafter refer red to as ’the Institute’) in the year 2006. While highlighting his literary acc omplishments chiefly in the Sankari culture earning for him coveted conferments, he has introduced himself as an Executive Member of the Assam Sahitya Sabha as well as a honourary member of Bardowa Satra Managing Committee. On 6.9.2011, he was served with a letter of the even date whereby he was asked to appear before a committee in relation to an enquiry on a complaint sub mitted by one Ms Karabi Das, a student of Electronics and Telecommunication of t he Institute. Though he had not till then been served with a copy of the complai nt or any document in connection therewith, he came to learn that the student ha d alleged misbehaviour by him towards her on 11.3.2011. According to the appella nt/ writ petitioner, he attended the enquiry on 12.9.2011 though he was not affo rded any opportunity to defend himself against the charge. His request for being supplied with a copy of the complaint and other documents was also not heeded t o. He was thereafter not intimated about the outcome of the enquiry. No report s ubmitted therein was also furnished to him. It was thereafter that by Notification No. ATE.171/2007/100 dated 23.9.2011 he w as transferred and posted as Lecturer at Silchal Polythecnic, Silchar. Situated thus, the appellant/ writ petitioner impugned the said Notification mainly on th e ground that his transfer in the attendant facts and circumstances was clearly punitive and, thus, not sustainable in law. He asserted absence of administrativ e exigency or public interest as well. On 29.9.2011, the learned counsel for the Education Department sought ti me to take instructions on the reasons for the transfer of the appellant/ writ p etitioner. By an order of the even date his undertaking to join the new place of posting on 24.10.2011 in absence of any other order of this Court in the interr egnum was noted. On the next date fixed i.e. 21.10.2011 the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties present issued notice and on an examination of the re cords produced declined to grant interim suspension of the impugned Notification dated 23.9.2011. The learned Single Judge observed on a scrutiny of the records that prima facie the petitioner’s transfer could not be held to be penal and st igmatic in nature, inasmuch as, no firm and final opinion on the imputation lev elled against him has been expressed by the respondents/ authorities concerned. Mr Dutta has argued that the purported enquiry conducted into the charge which was otherwise stale and unfounded is non-est for denial of opportunity to the appellant/ writ petitioner and, thus, the findings therein could not have b een taken note of or acted upon to transfer the appellant/ writ petitioner. Acco rding to the learned senior counsel, having regard to the background in which th e impugned Notification had been issued, it is apparent that the appellant’s tra nsfer was punitive as well as stigmatic and, thus, learned Single Judge ought to have granted the interim relief. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents in the writ proceeding, Mr Dutta has persuasively urge d that it would be apparent therefrom that the impugned transfer is punitive in nature and the enquiry having formed the foundation thereof, the Notification da ted 23.9.2011 is clearly unsustainable in law and on facts. Without prejudice to this stand, the learned senior counsel has insisted that in any view of the mat ter, the transfer of the writ appellant in the attendant circumstances is visibl y stigmatic and the same having been effected without affording any opportunity to him, denial of interim protection would render the writ petition infructuous. The learned Addl. Advocate General per contra has argued that having reg ard to the seriousness of the charge referred to in the complaint, a fact findin g enquiry was conducted in which the appellant was afforded all reasonable oppor tunities to defend himself. According to him, having regard to the disclosures i n the enquiry, though the respondent authorities abstained from initiating a dep artmental proceeding against him, on an assessment of the prevailing fact situat ion and in the interest of the academic environment of the institution the impug ned Notification of transfer was issued. With reference to the official records produced for the perusal of this Court, the learned Addl. Advocate General under lined that the episode referred to in the complaint received wide coverage preci pitating in demonstrations, dharnas and boycotts within the precincts of the Ins titute for which not only the academic ambience thereof was thoroughly defiled, the welfare of the students in general suffered a serious set back. Mr Saikia wh ile referring to the order dated 23.9.2011 also questioned the bonafide of the w rit appellant contending that the instant appeal, if entertained, would be an ab use of the process of the Court. Mr. Saikia in support of his contentions placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. -vs- Janard han Debnath & Anr, (2004) 4 SCC 245. We have traversed the pleadings on record and have duly analysed the arg uments advanced. We have perused as well the official records pertaining to the transfer of the appellant. The records reveal that on receipt of the complaint o f the student on 27.6.2011 alleging immoral advances by the appellant towards he r, having regard to the gravity of the accusation, the Director of Technical Edu cation, Assam was instructed to make an enquiry into the matter. The latter cons tituted a Committee for conducting the enquiry in which the writ appellant parti cipated. In course of the enquiry the statements of the writ appellant and of ot hers including the complaint were recorded and on 12.9.2011 it submitted its rep ort recommending the concerned authority to take appropriate measures which may protect the student community particularly the girl students from the probable h arassment as appealed by the complainant. The authority was also requested to do the needful so that the complainant could pursue her studies maintaining her di gnity. The matter was processed thereafter and on 17.9.2011 the Additional Secre tary, Higher Education Department recommended transfer of the writ appellant fro m the Institute considering that the matter pertained to the academic atmosphere of the institution. Eventually, the highest departmental authority of the State on a consideration of the recommendation made, approved the same and ordered hi s transfer and posting to Silchar Polytechnic, Silchar. The note approved by thi s departmental authority would also disclose that the said decision was taken in the best interest of the students, the Institute and the academic environment t hereof. The official records do not reveal any conclusive finding of the concern ed departmental authorities on the charge levelled against the appellant. Having regard to the disclosures from the official records, it cannot thus be decisive ly concluded that the writ appellant’s transfer had stemmed from a finding on th e basis of the enquiry conducted that the imputation brought by the complaint ha d been proved against him. On a scrutiny of the records, therefore, we are unab le to sustain the appellant’s plea that his transfer is either punitive or stigm atic. The Apex Court in Union of India -vs- Janardhan Debanath (supra) in an a lmost identical fact situation had held that for the purpose of effecting trans fer in the backdrop of an allegation of misbehaviour of an incumbent, the questi on of holding an enquiry to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the allega tion or the relatable conduct is unnecessary and what is essential is a prima fa cie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about t he occurrence complained of. It was observed that if the requirement 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. Their Lordships remarked that whether a n employee should be transferred is a matter for the employer to consider depend ing upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the probl ems faced by the administration and that it is not for the Court to direct one w ay or the other. The unambiguous stand of the respondents in their affidavit is that the appellant’s transfer is not punitive as neither the concerned authority has come to a conclusion regarding his guilt nor has it decided to inflict any punishmen t upon him without following the due procedure prescribed by law. According to t he respondents, the appellant has been transferred to maintain the academic atmo sphere in the Institute and to avoid any untoward situation apprehended as a res ult of the dharnas and boycotts resorted to by the students in protests against the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the pleaded stand of the respondents as well as the revelations from the records, we are no t inclined to interfere. The respondent authorities being the best judge of the welfare of the Institute and the students in general as well as the guardian of the academic environment, substitution of the appraisal made by them of the admi nistrative exigencies by that of this Court would be wholly inexpedient. The fac t, as recorded in the order dated 29.9.2011, that the writ appellant had underta ken to join the new post on transfer on 24.10.2011 and that the writ proceeding is pending for disposal on merit, also cannot be lost sight of. We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is, thus, dismissed. No costs .