<9Fitf?)^ BEFQRE THE HONTBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^ 9 j / 2007 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE PETITIONER l^' ^. i^-J?"./ ^.sry ^' ^ ^ RESPONDENTS ^"S-.s & ''f~'.>.... —°"'~;',-!S '%^?a^«^ CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA. Prasad Naik, son of Dibyanand Nayak, aged about 44 years, presently posted and working as Multi Purpose Worker (MPW) Section Madva, Community, Health Centre, Dabra, Dist Janjgir-Champa (CG) VERSUS ^- The State of Chahttisgarh, fhrough - the Secretary, Deptt of Health, D.K.S. Building, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) ^. Under Secretary, Deptt of Healtyh, D.K.S. Building, Mantralay, Raipur (CG) 3^ Chief Medical OfEicer, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Block Medical Officer, Dabra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) r The petitioner respectfuUy submits as under:- ^^ /l^— 31- HIGH COUKT Op W^AVTLSGAW AT BILASPUft 'vVrit Petition (SY No. 591 of 20)7 Petitioner; 6autam Prasod Naik Versus Respondents: The State of Chhattisgar+i 11 3:- Single Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri H.5. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Siri Arvind Dubey. Ponei lawyes' for the respondents/State. ORbER yassed on 31st doy of January, 2007) 1. Learned counset oppearing for -the petitioner submits •that by order dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure P/l) the petitioner was tronsferred from Madwa Community Heai'tft Caitre, Janpad Panchoyat Dabhra, District JonJ9ir-Champa to Sub-Heaith Centre, AAohora, Block Balkunthpur-, District Koriya on his own expenw-s. 2. Earlier, the petitioner hud filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 3867/2006, challenging the validity of the said order. This Court-. after hearing leamed counsel for the part'ies, granted liberty to the petitioner to make detailed representation. The re^iondent No. 2 therein, Under Secretary, tSepartment of Health, &.K.S. Building, Mon+rotaya, Raipur, Chhattisgorh was directed to consider and decide the some. within 30 days from the date of its receipt. It vws i.-.-.-A._...._J!_ ^ further directed "that in the mean whife, if the petitioner was not relieved titl date, he would not be relieved till the representation filed by him was decided. 3. Tne respondent No. 2, by the order dated 3.1.2007 (Annewjre P/2), after, having considered the representation of the petitioner, pursuont to the order dated 7.8.2006, passed by this Court, rejected the representation on the ground that +he order of trwisfer was pas»don tiia basis of ^verol complaints against him. 4. The petitioner hos filed this petition impugning the order dated 3.1.2{X)7 (Annexure P/2), passed by tiie respondent No. 2. 5. It is well settled tiiat the transfer of on emoloyee can be made on the basis of complaints. Transfers unless they invoive cny such adverse impact or visit the persons concemed with any p consequences, are not required to be subjected to same t/pe of scrutiny, e^proach and assessment as in the case of dismissa!, discharge, reversion or -termination ond utmost latitude rfiouid be ieft with 1+ie department concerned to enforce discipiine, decency and deconim in public sefvwe. which ore indisputably essentia! to maintain quality' of public service and meet untoward administrative exigensies to enajre smooth functioning of the administration. For +he purposes of effecting a tronsfer, the question of hoiding an enquiry to find out whether the complaint was true, is unnecessary and n+iat is needed is -the prima facie sutisfaction of the authority w i:t concemed on the contemporory reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as subfflitt-ed by the re^iondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon, +he very purpose of tnnsferring cn empfoyee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probit/ woutd get frustrated. (See Union of India and aifiers v. Janardhan De. 1 ^ 6. Furi+ier, it is weS! settled princip!e of taw that tronsfer is an incidence of service. and it is for- the empioyer to decide as to where a particular officer/empioyee be posted keeping in view public interest as weli as administrotive exigency. This Court has Simited jurisdiction to interfere in the tronsfer matter and this Couri- can interfere on!y m •tfie cases of proved mala fide, non-eompetence of cuthority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rufes and regulations. None of the above grounds are avaitabie to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismis«dsummariiy. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. AgBihotri Judge Bablu l^ii ''^.^^ -_.L