IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8635 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.04.2011 Bhupinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking interference of the Court with an order dated 16.03.2010 by which the transfer of the 4th respondent to the Central Jail, Bhatinda made by an order of the previous date i.e. 15.03.2010 was cancelled. In the writ petition filed the allegations of corruption have been levelled against the respondent No.4 and, further, directions have been sought for institution of a criminal case against the aforesaid respondent. Respondents No. 1,2 and 3 as well as the respondent No.4 have filed their replies in the case. A reading of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 would go to show that complaints were received with regard to certain acts/actions on the part of the 4th respondent which were duly enquired into. While the specific acts of misappropriation were found to be unsubstantiated, in the second enquiry which relates to the allegations of sale of jail produce, connivance of the Superintendent, the 4th respondent and two head wardens were found, though no financial loss had been occasioned as a result of the same, inasmuch, as the money had been recovered and deposited in the treasury. The report of the 2nd enquiry CWP No. 8635 of 2010 [2] has been sent to the Government for taking necessary action, though no such action appears to have been taken till today. In the reply filed by the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 it has been further stated that the transfer of the 4th respondent was made by order dated 15.03.2010 due to the allegations levelled against him. However, on reconsideration, it was found that the transfer of the 4th respondent, without holding any enquiry, would not be justified and therefore, the transfer order was cancelled on the next date i.e. 16.03.2010. As two separate enquiries had been held in respect of the allegations levelled against the 4th respondent and findings have been recorded, as noticed above, we are of the view that no direction with regard to further action in the matter should be passed by the Court. Rather, the matter should be left to the wise discretion of the appropriate authority of the State Government to whom a report of the 2nd enquiry has been sent. In so far as the transfer of the 4th respondent is concerned, it appears that the said respondent had completed more than three years of service in the Nabha Jail and under the norms in force he would be due for transfer. The power of transfer of an officer of the State is to be exercised by the authority of the State and not by the Court. However, if there are norms laying down a particular 'tenure' for a government servant at any one station and such government servant had completed the 'tenure', an order transferring the officer should normally be passed. We, therefore, leave the aforesaid matter to be decided by the appropriate authority in the State Government who will pass consequential orders in the light of the administrative exigencies as may exist on date. Beyond the above, no further order or direction, according to us, will be justified. We, therefore, close this PIL in terms of the above directions. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.04.2011 'ravinder'