IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20825 of 2011 1. Pravin Kumar Sinha S/O Late Dugadhu Prasad R/O Village- Din Dayalpur, P.S.- Sahakund, P.O.-Koranda, District- Bhagalpur, At Present Posted As Assistant Engineer, Chandan Pariyojana (Project) Division, Cada Banka (Bhagalpur) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary And Irrigation Development Deptt. Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. Divisional Commissioner-Cum-Chairman Of K.B.C. Cada Bhagalpur At Bhagalpur 3. Superintending Engineer Of K.B.C. Cada Bhagalpur At Bhagalpur 4. The Secretary Of K.B.C. Cada Banka (Bhagalpur), At Bhagalpur 5. The Executive Engineer (Agricultural) Chandan Priyojana Parmandal Cada, Banka (Bhagalpur) 6. Sri Devendra Kumar Chaudhary, Junior Engineer (Agriculture) Bama Pariyojana Division, Tarapur Cada, At Present At Chandan Pariyojana, Cada Banka (Bhagalpur) ---------------------------------- 2. 19.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by his order of transfer dated 22.10.2011 from Tarapur to Banka. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Bihar Agriculture and Rural Areas Development Agency Service Conditions, Discipline Control and Appeal Rules, 2010 framed by the Water Resources Department transfers are normally to be done in the Month of June as provided in Rule 158. Rule 167(d) provides that in case of transfers not done in normal course, the approval of the Board has to be 2 obtained. Such approval has not been obtained with regard to the petitioner. Counsel for the State submits that it is more of a procedural administrative matter which cannot vitiate the order of transfer in its entirety. The order dated 22.10.2011 is directed to be placed before the Board under the Rules for its approval/disapproval. The Board is required to take such decision within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order before the concerned respondents. Needless to state that any joining of the petitioner on the transferred post shall remain subject to such final decision of the Board. The submission of the petitioner that the transfer was malafide and motivated on allegations which the petitioner has had no opportunity to defend does not merit consideration. There has to be a difference between allegations for the purposes of punishment which cannot be imposed without proper opportunity to defend and administrative reasons for transfer. This distinction has been noticed in (2004) 4 SCC 245 (Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath) 3 holding:- “14…………… Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, 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. The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside…………….” The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)