1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CASE No.4533 of 2010 ============================================= Ashok Kumar S/o Sri Laxman Ram R/O Mohalla Ramdhan Pur in Pipal Gali, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Gaya, A/P Lower Division Clerk, Census Cell, Collectorat, Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Board of evenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary, General Administrative (Personel ) Bihar, Patna. 4. Sri Dr. Ashok Vardhan, Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Sri Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Sri Vivek Kumar, Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 7. Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh, District Magistrate, Gaya. 8. Sri Jitendra Kumar Sinha, District Magistrate, Patna. 9. Sri Krityanand Ranjan, Deputy Collector, Establishment, Gaya. 10. Sri Ravi Ranjan Kumar Gupta, the then Block Development Officer, Banke Bazar, Gaya. 11. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Sr. Deputy Collector, Establishment, Pa;tna. 12. Sri Bijendra Kumar Jha, A.D.M. Establishment, Patna. 13. Smt. Manjusha Chandra, Sr. Establishment Deputy Collector, Gaya. 14. Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Clerk, Establishment Section, Gaya. 15. Sri Lalan Prasad, Clerk, Aman Block, Gaya Collectorate, Gaya. .... .... Respondents……… Opposite Party 10 13-07-2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This contempt application has been filed for non compliance of the order dated 17.05.2010. The petitioner had filed the writ application praying for mutual transfer from Patna to Gaya. This application was rejected. Subsequently, this Court asked the concerned authorities i.e. Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to look into the rules regarding mutual transfer and pass appropriate orders. The order of 2 this Court was finally complied with, by passing reasoned order which is contained in the show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is unjustified and the reasons are incorrect. Be that as it may, the order of this Court has been complied to that extent. The petitioner would also have the liberty to challenge the order if so adviced. During the pendency of the contempt application disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The ground for initiation of the proceedings were that (a) the wife of the petitioner had filed an application for the transfer of her husband which was not in accordance with the Government Circular No. 4361 dated 17.04.1984, and (b)- that the show cause filed by the petitioner was not satisfactory, (c) that the petitioner had used un-parliamentary language in the show-cause. At this stage, this Court may just point out that the said application of transfer of the husband was filed by the wife during the pendency of the writ application. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in which they have justified the initiation of issuance of paripatra “ka” by stating that the petitioner had earlier filed an application for transfer, which was not correctly worded and as such a show- cause was issued to him in the year 2008. On the second occasion 3 when he has filed show cause again he has used what has been alleged as un-parliamentary language. This Court will not go into the issue as to the language used by the petitioner while filing his show cause as it is not subject matter of the dispute, but I cannot help observe that at least one of the grounds for issuance of charges i.e. an application filed on behalf of the wife for transfer seems to be very weak reason for initiating charges. The grounds stated in the affidavit by the State Government is that there is a Government Circular which is Annexure-F which indicates that such applications on behalf of the wife, father or mother would not be entertained for the purpose of considering the transfer of Government employees. This Government Circular No. 4361 dated 17.04.1984 is a decision by the State Government not to entertain such representation may or may not be justified, but it can hardly be a ground to initiate the Departmental Proceedings as it does not reflect on the character of the person concerned. It is a mere representation. There may be more than one circumstances, in which it becomes necessary for a close relation, to file an application on behalf of the employee, for transfer and as such prima facie such a representation cannot be counted as a ground initiating a Departmental Proceeding. The 4 State Government may be justified in not considering such representations favorably but to start departmental proceedings on this ground cannot be justified. The petitioner obviously would first be required to reply to the charges as the Court cannot quash the charge sheet while hearing the contempt application. However, while considering the matter the above observations must be kept in mind. I may clarify that ordinarily this court does not interfere by passing an order regarding the grounds of issuance of a charge sheet. But once a fact is brought to the notice of the Court on affidavit by the State, the Court cannot ignore the facts and close its mind to flaring illegalities. In the result, this application is disposed off. Md. Ibrarul/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)