IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3582/2011 Decided on:15.7.2011 _____________________________________________ Shiv Singh Sen. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was transferred and posted at Nagar Panchayat, Rewalsar on 30.4.2009. He was transferred vide Annexure P-1 from Nagar Panchayat, Rewalsar to Nagar Panchayat, Nadaun on 16.5.2011. 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma has submitted that his client has not been permitted to complete normal tenure of 3-5 years at the present place of posting. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the transfer of the petitioner has been ordered in public interest. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was posted at Nagar Panchayat, Rewalsar only on 30.4.2009. Admittedly, he has not completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting. He has been transferred to Naduan on 16.5.2011. It has come in the reply that various complaints were received on 4.6.2011 and 16.6.2011 against the petitioner. These complaints have been received by the Department after the transfer of the petitioner as the petitioner has been transferred on 16.5.2011. These complaints have been prima facie referred to by the respondents in the reply in order to prejudice the case of the petitioner. In case there were complaints against the petitioner before his transfer, it could be said that he was not discharging his duties efficiently. However, in that eventuality also the allegations/ complaints were required to be looked into before the transfer of the petitioner. There is no reason forthcoming why the petitioner has been transferred before permitting him to complete his normal tenure 3 except the complaints dated 4.6.2011 and 16.6.2011, that too, after the transfer of the petitioner. The power to transfer the employee must be exercised judiciously and not in arbitrary manner. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 dated 16.5.2011, qua the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to complete normal tenure at the present place of posting. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 15.7.2011 *awasthi*