N W TRE MGR CQURT OF CRHATTt$GARH AT B!LASPI£RV(C.GJ \k Writ Petition is) No. £3?! 0009 Petitioner :::: / Paras Ram Tigga, Son of shri Bhagtu Ram Tigga, Age 45 years, Assistant Grade-Ill, R/o Shabri Emporium, Parchanpai, District Bastar (C.G.). Versus Respondent :::: ' / 1. state of Chhattisgarh, Through - The secretary, Gram Udyog Department, Mantralava, D.K.S.Bhawan, Ramur (C.G.). / 2. “\Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board, C-35, Ravi Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another. WRIT PETITTON UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ‘Present: Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Arjvocate for the petitioner. (‘1. mm i \T uméRay K Pam} La "yer for the State/respondwts. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 05‘ day of November, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 02nd September, 2009 (Annexure P/6) whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 4th Angust, 2909 (Aimexure P/5) against the transfer order daterl 26m June, 2009 (Annexure PM) has been rejected. Earlier, the petitioner had tiled a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3984/2009 against the order dated 26m June, 2009 whereby the petitioner wiio is Assistant Grade HI in the department of Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board and posted at l3archanpal, Bastar, was transferred to Narayanpur, on administrative grounds. The grounds of challenge in that petition was that the seniority of the Assistant Grade HI is maintained district—Wise and ifthe petitioner is transferred from one district to another district, his seniority would be affected and further, her Wife is also a ' government servant working at Farsaguda. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 3 1“ July, 2009 with a direction to the petitioner to make a representationto the respondent authorities within a period of 10 days and the respondent authorities were directed to decide the said representation Within a further period of three weeks from the date of its receipt. Aeeordingly, the petitioner made a representation on 4th August, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR y WRIT PETITION (S) No. 637 1 of2009 PETITIONER Paras Ram Tigga. VERSUS wk 2009 (Annexure 13/5). The said fepresentation was considered by the From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner has been transferred 0n account of certain allegations ofmisconduct, disobedience of the orders ofhis superiors and negiigence in his duty. It is well-settled that the transfer of an employee can be made on the basis of complaints. Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visit the person concemed with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the resyondent—authorities and rejected. Thus, this petition. case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be lett with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth mnctioning of the administration. For the purpose of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether the complaint was tine, 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 ifthe requirement, as submitted by the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to he insisted upon, the very purpose oftransferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get hustrated. (See Union offndia & Others v. Janardhan Debamzrh & anoriier’). Transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer t0 decide asto Where a particular officen" employee be posted, keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases of proved malatide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the rules and regulations; The ' petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. m 1 (2904) 4 soc 245, at page 251. <g’5 v. Jamrdhan Debcmatk (Q anoiher’g, Siaie ofAiP. (ma? anaa‘her v. SSKozm’ cmd ozhers4 and Akakd. A/fasoaci Ahmad v. Stare afUP. & Othersj). So far as contention of the petitioner that the i a}20£%erz,' Urziors affndia and an0£ker contrary to the trnsfer policy 2009-10 is concealed; transfe policy is mere guidelines and not conirolled by statutory proisions. The effect thereo is Secamdarabad & Others v. G, Ramam & Ofkers‘f, gar, ). Sow]? Ceniml ailway, pennissibie legal grous nd as aforestated, warranting interference. For the reasons as aforestated, the petion is dismissed. f atish KAgnihorl Sd/- . ' it 7‘ S t Judge E 1974 (4) soc 3 3 (2004} 4 sec 245 r‘ (1995) 3 SCC 27o 5(200’0 s SCC 15o , H2007). 8 scc 212 ml a r v f ‘ a R it \ ,