y 1 ^ (» IN THE HIGH COURT Q]P CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S| N0. r2>%^^ /2010 PETITIONER y Ftam Kawal Singh S/o L^te Sitarani Singh, aged about 59 years, ,*<4^v^ ja^ Occupation Service, posted as Forest ,..^..^< • Range Officer, Durgfc:ondal, Forest Division East BhanupraLappur, District Kanker C.G. VERSUS ^^ .-^ ^ ^ ^^""'^'•x..., ^,^%^- RESPONDENTS l'. State ofC.G. through the Secretary Forest Department, DKS Bhawan F^aipur C.G. 2. The Divisional Forest officer, Forest . ^)ivision - East Bhanu^)ratappuLr, District Kanker C.G. 3. Shri G. Ramlal Rao, Forest Range Officer, Bhariupratappiir, Forest Division - East :Bhanupratappi;ir, District Kanker C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE_226 01: THIE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORt ISSUE_QIF_A!4 APPROPRIATE WR][T IN TtilE_NIATURE:_OF MANOAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECLION^t^DEJl IN THELIKE NATURE ETC. \( HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BJLA8PUR VVR!TPETJT!0!1.(S1N0.38980F201Q EiimONER Ram Kawal Singh Versus RESPQNDENTS State of C.G. & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri/J. Present:- Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer fbr the State. Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed ontt!is4(liday^FMarch, 2011) 1. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15/07/2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby th@ petitioner, working on the post of Forest Range Officer, has been transferred from Durgkondal to Forest Division K^nker. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submJts that eariier the petitioner was transferred to Farasgaon to Durgkondat vide order dated 30-06-2009 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, within a period of about 13 months, the petitioner has been transferred from Durgkondal to Forest Division Kanker by the impugned order dated 15-07-2010 (Annexure P/1) against the transfer policy. M per the transfer policy prescribed by the State Govemment, no employee should be transferred within a period of 2% years. Learned counsei further submits that the petitioner is going to retire from his service in the month of July, 2011. On the event of execution of the transfer order, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss because his retrial dues could not be settled properiy. Therefore, the /?^^\ ; 1...,-^^ I ^^•^ '^ ^ '^^^^' 2 impugned order is bad in law and the same deserves to be auashed. 4. On the other hand, tearned counsel appearing fbr the State submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed on the ground of complaint received against the petitioner because there were serious nature of complaint against the petitioner with r^ard to felling oftrees in an illegal manner, as is evident from notice dated 01-07-2010 and other news paper ctippings. Learned counse) further submits that the petitioner has been transferred on the recommendation of higher authority, that too within a distance cf 52 Kms. from the present place of posting. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, perused the pteadings and the documente appended thereto. 6. The transfer order has been passed on the basis of administrative exigency. On perusat of the order dated 15-07-2010, it does not appear to be stigmatic. The petjtsoner has failed to prove the mala ffcte by cogent and strong reasons and lack of competence of the officer passing the impugned transfer order. Mere setfsame statement and inference that there was an enquiry, therefore, the transfer was mala fide, Is misplaced. Thus, the fransfer order is just and proper, 7. Principle of law on this issue Ss well settled that if there are certain complaints against the emptoyee without hoiding any enqujry, the transfer of such employee can be made in the public interest as well as in administrative exigency. On the simitar issue, the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another1, held as under: 1 (2004) 4 SCC 245 .-y'' "14. The allegations made against the rsspondente are of serious nature, and th@ conduct attributed is certainiy unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gon@ into jn a departmentai proceeding. For the purposes of efFectmg a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether tliere was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is noedsd is the prima iacie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence compiained of and if the requirement, as submitted by leamed counsel for the respondents, of holding an ©Saborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the ver/ purpose of transfemng an employee jn pubtic interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity wouSd get frustrated. The question whether respondents could be transferred to a different dlivision is a matter for the empioyer to consider depending upon the administratEve necessitles and the e)dent of solution for the probiems faced by the admin'strat'on. !t ss not for this Court to cilrect one way or the other, *.».." ^ 8. St is further well settied that transfer is an ineidenoe of sewice and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particutar officer/empioyee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as admsnistratsve exigency. This Court has limjted jurisdiGtion to "interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proved maia fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order anct not being in conformity with the rules and reguiations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provisions of service rules, emplo^r has alt the powers to post an employee at a particular piace in \^ew of public interest and admmistratsve exigency. (See ERRoyappe v. Stete of Tamil f^adu and anoff^s^, State of M.P. and awther v. S.S.KOUMV and bthers3 &n^ MofTd. Masood Ahmad v. StQteofU.P. & Others4). 21974(4)SCC3 3 (1995)38cc 270 4(2007)8SCC150 ^: Ashok 9. So far as the contention of the petttioner that the impugined order is contrary to the policy of the State Government is eoncemed, the polides are mere guidelines and not controlled by stetutory provisions. The effect thereof Js advisory jn character and thereby no legal right js conferred upon the employee. (See: Chief CommeralBi Manager, Sauth Centraf RBifway, Seaund^rabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others^). 10. Even otherwise, there is no chaHenge to the impugned tran^er order on any other permissjble iegat grounds as aforestated, warranting interterence with the impugned transfer order. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition <s dismissed. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '(2007) 8 SCC 212