IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10557 of 2010 SANJAY KUMAR, S/O SRI GURUCHARAN CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAHALPUR, POLICE STATION- BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA. …….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMERCIAL TAXES, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PURNEA PRAMANDAL, PURNEA. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (IN-CHARGE) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KATIHAR CIRCLE, KATIHAR. .. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 12.05.2011. Heard both the sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner Commercial Taxes-cum-Principal Secretary dated 29.03.2010, as contained in Annexure-3, by which, due to some purported administrative reasons, he was transferred from the post of Commercial Taxes Officer, Katihar Division to Headquarter at Patna in the same capacity. The said order was later on confirmed by notification dated 30.06.2010 as contained in Annexure-4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Principal Secretary on 25.02.2010 leveling some allegations against one Maheshwari Kumar Verma, Joint Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. Copy of the said complaint is Annexure-2A. He submits that it was only on account of the said complaint filed by the 2 petitioner that he was transferred from Katihar to Patna by the impugned orders, Annexures-3 and 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in fact said Maheshwari Kumar Verma had also filed a complaint against this petitioner and others. The statements in respect of which has been made by petitioner in paragraph-7. Hence, the petitioner had filed the said complaint, as contained in Annexure- 2A, only in retaliation of same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same day when Mr. Verma had come for inspection, he had filed the complaint and it was not in retaliation to complaint by Mr. Verma against petitioner. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner was posted in Katihar on 30.06.2008. Hence, as on today, petitioner has completed almost three years from the date of his posting at Katihar. Therefore, even if the impugned orders are quashed, as a result of which the petitioner will be back to Katihar, his three years of posting there will be completed and he will be again liable to be transferred from Katihar. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the transfer, as contained in Annexures-3 and 4. However, the complaint of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-2A, shows that, besides his complaint in respect of misbehavior by said Mr. Verma with him and others staffs of the 3 Circle Office, he has mentioned about some omissions and commissions of Mr. Verma of some previous period which are unconnected with the incidents which happened during the inspection. If the omissions and commissions of Mr. Verma, as pointed out by the petitioner in his complaint, are correct, the matter may be serious and is fit to be inquired into by the Department. In the circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate that the Principal Secretary of the Department may apply his mind to the specific incidents of omissions and commissions by Mr. Verma as pointed out in the complaint of the petitioner and consider whether any appropriate action is needed, or not. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Ibrar/- ( J. N. Singh, J. )