IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8634 of 2008 DR.CHANDRA BHUSHAN PD.SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 17.07.2008 The petitioner seeks the quashing of Annexure – 1, the transfer order transferring him from the post of Civil Surgeon, Gaya to Head Quarters, Health Department at Patna on administrative grounds. The main ground taken by the petitioner as in paragraph 11 and 14 of the petition is that the petitioner was pressurized to help political party Janta Dal United leaders at Gaya which he refused and that on 10.05.2008 the petitioner had made complaint to respondent no. 2, the Secretary Health Department, Bihar against the Local District Administration for non cooperation and that these annoyed the respondents as a result of which the transfer order was passed. The petitioner says that he was pressurized to accord undue favour to Janta Dal United leaders but the details and nature of favour is not disclosed nor the persons who were said to be the beneficiary of the favour have been fully disclosed nor they have been made respondents in this application. So far the allegation of non cooperation of the local District Administration is concerned it is also not clearly specified. Thus the allegation on which the transfer order is assailed is not clear, specific and detailed. In the counter affidavit the respondent refers to letter dated 10.04.2008 of the District Magistrate, Gaya addressed to the Principal Secretary, Health Department, wherein it has been stated that out of the allotments made for the year 2007-2008 amount of Rs. 2, 80, 2 00000/- were not spent as a result of which is a Pulse Polio Programme and also relating to malaria and falaria could not be completed. It was also stated that the petitioner was usually found absent when required and that on 3.11.2007, 4.11.2007 and 30.12.2007 when inspection was made the petitioner was found absent in his office and that on 1.1.2008 while the Chief Minister had visited the area the petitioner had absented himself without any information. It is also mentioned that the relationship of the petitioner with the office staff was not congenial and therefore, in the interest of administration transfer of the petitioner was recommended. Letter dated 3.5.2008 of the Commissioner of Magadh commissionery, Gaya is also referred to wherein it is stated that the Commissioner found that the petitioner was not taking interest in his official works and that without taking permission he usually left the Head Quarter and remained at Patna. It was also stated that the petitioner was promoting indiscipline amongst officers and staff. The Commissioner also stated that he inspected pilgrim hospital at Gaya thrice and had sent his inspection report for removal of defects but the report was never complied by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner deputed concerned doctors to other places for attending meetings as a result of to fact the Pulse Polio Programme was badly affected and that the requisite amount availed by the government for control of Pulse Polio Programme was not utilized by the petitioner. Learned counsel also refers to the letter dated 20.05.2008 of the Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar whereby an explanation has been called from the petitioner with regard to said matters. It is 3 submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner does not perform his official duties and several defects and irregularities were noticed by Higher Authorities which caused administrative problems and due to that the transfer order was affected. The petitioner has replied to the counter affidavit wherein he stated to have spent some portions of funds allotted. Annexure 6 to the Supplementary Affidavit is the letter written to by the petitioner of the Officer-In-Charge, Kotwali P.S. Gaya wherein the petitioner has alleged that when he went to Civil Surgeon Office some persons of Janta Dal United Party surrounded him and at paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit it is also stated that Class III and Class IV employees of the office were also involved in that activities. Thus the petitioner himself admits that his office staff and out side persons all are against him and they create problems for him. He does not explain why the persons including the official staffs are against the petitioner to the extent that they even become so violent against him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner does not create smooth and congenial atmosphere and there are also complaints against him which have been referred to in the aforesaid letter of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner Gaya, Magadh which creates administrative problems and due to which the petitioner have been transferred from the office. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any specific ground showing administrative exigency is not being explained and the order of transfer is prejudicial. But in the facts and circumstances as discussed in the matter I do not find substance in the 4 case of the petitioner. In such view of the matters finding no merit in this application the same is dismissed. The stay of the operation of Annexure 1 as ordered by this Court’s order dated 27.05.2008 will also stand vacated. Kundan (C. M. Prasad, J.)