fc^ ^'\©- •^:^^^' .%s:?? HIGH CQURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench Coram : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh and Hon'ble Shri Raieshwar Lal Jhanwar, JJ. WritADpeal No^33 of 2009 T.S.Koshtey versus State of Chhattisgarh and others ORDER FOR CONSIDERATIOhL Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Hon'bleShrLRajeshvgirt.aUhanwarLJ,: 9 ^r7'.<-e—^ e^ Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge POST FOR f7 -8-2009 Sd/- -T^S^'^ 'SSsss lfe>,-.^ ••i?m^ 1&C HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench Coram : Hon'ble Shri Dilio Raosaheb Deshmukh and Hon'ble Shri Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar, JJ. Writ Appeal No.233 of 2009 Appellant (Petrtionerl T.S.Koshley, S/o Noor Das Koshley, aged 59 years, occupation Service, Presently posted as Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Raigarh, Resident of Quarter No.F- 1, Irrigation Colony, South Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) versus Respondente 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Shri Damodar Mishra, S/o Not Known to the petitioner, as Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department, Raigarh of the State of Chhattisgarh, Presently Posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Mini Mata Bango Dam, Sub Division No.5, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, counsel for the caveator/respondent No.4. !• ••1, .--/:'j: -.;,.,-^s«<"' ORDER (Passed on this h.day of August, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.: By this writ appeal, the appellant has challenged the dismissal of Writ Petition (S.) No.3735/2008 by the learned Single Judge by order dated 16-7-2009. (2) The appellant/petitioner had.in Writ Petition (S.) No.3735/2008 challenged the order dated 7-7-2008 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, whereby while transferring the petitioner in administrative exigency on the same post as Executive Engineer in the office of the Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Kachhar, Bilaspur respondent No.4 Shri Damodar Mishra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Mini Mata Bango Dam, Sub- Division No.5, Sakti was posted in place of the petitioner as Incharge Executive Engineer in current charge on his own expense. (3) , By order dated 7-7-2008, Shri V.K.Vachchhani, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tandula, Water Resources Sub-Division No.5, Durg, Shri D.M.Borde, Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub-Division Nawagarh, District Durg, Shri S.K.Sahu, Assistant Engineer (Rural), office of the Executive Engineer, Mahanadi Jalashay Pariyojana, Second Phase Work, Raipur and Shri V.K.Malhotra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub-Division Kansabel were also transferred to Kanker, Rajnandgaon, Dabra, District Janjgir-Champa and Water Resources Division Champa respectively on their own expenses as Incharge Executive Engineer. -—-' CSt^... r- -<i^ ^ (4) In paragraph 8.6 of the writ petition, it was stated that the transfer of respondent No.4 in place of the petitioner was absolute ma/a fide exercise of the power to transfer. (5) By order appealed against it was held that transfer is an incidence of service and the impugned transfer order having been issued in administrative exigency could not be quashed on the ground of mala ffde as no specific allegations alleging mala fide against anyone were made in the writ petition. (6) Admittedly, the superannuation of the appellant/petitioner is to take place on 31 December, 2009. The appellant/petitioner is posted as Executive Engineer, Raigarh since 19-11-2007. (7) Out of the grounds taken by the appellant/petitioner in writ appeal, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has pressed only ground No.A, which reads as under: "A. From the tenure and texture of the order that the Assistant Engineer has been posted as Executive Engineer that too on his own request in spite of the fact that the post of Assistant Engineer is vacant at Raigarh shows that the ^ transfer order suffers from malafide." It was argued that the fact that despite direction by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the respondents did not produce the application of respondent No.4 for transfer from Mini Mata Bango Dam, Sub-Division No.5, Sakti to Water Resources Division, Raigarh at his own expense and the fact that the respondent No.4 was posted at his own expense as Incharge Executive Engineer, Raigarh despite there being 9 posts of Assistant ^;^'^ ? ^,^y. "vs'-^^'f \T!S' Engineer vacant in Raigarh Division is sufficient to draw an inference that the exercise of power by respondent No.1 was actuated by mala fide. (8) On the other hand, Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Government Advocate of the State/respondents No.1 to 3 argued in support of the impugned order and contended that transfer is an incidence of service and the appellant/petitioner was transferred in administrative exigency. No specific allegations of mala fide against anyone were made by the petitioner in the writ petition and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. (9) Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.4 argued that the appellant/petitioner cannot have any grievance against his transfer on the same post from Raigarh to Bilaspur. It was also argued that the appellant/petitioner hails from Raipur and was, therefore, posted near his home district at the fag end of his service. (10) Having considered rival submissions we have perused the documents annexed. We are of the considered opinion that pleadings relating to ma/a fides have to bespecific. In the writ petition, there were no specific allegations as to how the transfer of the petitioner on the same post at a place near his home district is actuated by mala fide. The -impugned order shows that besides the respondent No.4, three Sub-Divisional Officers and one Assistant Engineer have also been transferred and posted in the current charge of Incharge Executive Engineer at different places. Therefore, it cannot be said that the \0& transfer of the appellant/petitioner and the posting of the respondent No.4 in his place on current charge was actuated by ma/a fide. Transfer is an incidence of service. When a transfer is made by the competent authority under administrative exigency, it is not liable to be interfered with unless specific allegations of mala fide are pleaded and proved. (11) We are thus of the considered opinion that the dismissal of the writ petition by the impugned order is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference in writ appeal. (12) The writ appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Gopal