@ MGOZ/ IN THE mm scum OF mxcm-URE w-"Emm'rxsmm Ay BxLA3PUR WIT PETITION No.24r84/2304 PETITIONER : Gajendr‘a Singh Sahu S/O Jalam Singh, Aged 53 years, Asastant Teacher, Primal? School .- Panduka, BlocEc - Chhura, Dist‘tg Raipur (CAL? REL? PONDENTS u A. v State of Chha‘t'tisgarh Through : Sacretary Ministxy of SC/ST, Development Deyartment, DcKJs. Bhawan, Raimlr (C.Ga) (iollector, Réipur (c .G g) 5) Rana Pratap Singh, Assistant Teacher Primary School, Gapalpur Bloc}: — Mainpur, Distt. Raipur (C,G.) cx WRIT E3ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22? W $E OONSTITU‘I‘ION Q? INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2484 of 2004 Petitioner Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8r. others Gajendra Singh Sahu r Hx Post for onier 011 I§ June, 2006. / ‘ ‘ ‘ sa/- . . Satish K- Agmhom Judge ‘ 'iwi‘wmm M r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pen'tion No. 2484 of 2004 Petitioner Gajendra Siugh Sahu Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 6r. others SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Y. C. Shanna, Advocate for the peh‘ti0ner.‘ Shn' V. V. S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shxi I. N. Shn'vastava, Panel lawyer for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER ( [5'5u‘ne 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. mihotrl, J. In the present peu'tion, the petitioner assails the transfer Older dated 31.7.2004 (Annexure P/ 1) whereby the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Teacher, was hiansfened from primary school Panduka, block- Chhura to the primary school Gopalpur, block-Mampur, on the ground that the impugned transfer order was passed in malaiide exercise of power on the part of the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Y. C. Shanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order was passed on the basis of a complaint made by one; Dharmendra Sahu. Shri Dharmendra Sahu ~ wanted to sell some timber wood to the petitioner and since the petitioner refused to purchase said tiniber $0111 Shri Dharmendra Sahu, a false complaint was lodged against the petitioner. It was further stated that the petitioner happened to have very goodtelations with the former Congress Chief Minister. The said Shri Dharmendra Sahu had further lodged a F.I.R. against the petitioner and one Shri \’(¥ Q[ g2) Vikmmaditjza Sahu for commission of the oEences under the provisions of Section 294, 323, 506-3 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on 21.7.2004. 3. Learned counsel for the peh‘tioner, on the basis of the above stated allegah‘ons submitted that the impugned transfer Older is vitiated on account of malande exemise of powers by the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shn' V. V. S. Moorthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri / I. N.. Shrivastava, learned Panel lawyer, appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2, on the contrary, categorically denied the above stated allegations and the submission that the order of transfer was passed in exercise of powers malafide. It was submitted that the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in primary school Panduka for the last more than 19 years. The petitioner indulged in political ach'vities, as is evident from the complaint made by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pandukau A proper enquiry was - conducted on the complaint dated 9.7.2004 of Sarpanch by the Block Development Otiicer. The Block Development Otiicer in the enquiry, came tothe conclusion that the petih'oner indulged in the political activities openly and misbehaved with other employees of the school. The said report was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur on 22.9.2004. The petitioner was transferred in public interest and due to the administrative exigencies, keeping in View hthe unwarranted activities of the '§ a;“ A‘_ A petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records appended to the petition and documents tiled by the respondents, it is clearly established that the impugned transfer order was passed not on the basis of the complaints made by one. Shri Dharmendra Sahu i J i y i v, % but on the basis of the complaints made by Sarpanch, which was pmpcrly enquired into and the respondents having been satisfied with> the enquiry report, transferred the petm‘oner &om primary school Panduka, Block Chhura, District- Rajpur to Primary School Gopalpur, Block-Mainpur, Dishict Raipur. The challenge of the petitioner is not on any other ground, except on the gmund of malafxde exercise of powers, which the petitioner has failed to establish. It is well settled principle of law that in the case of transfer, on the basis of the conduct of the petitioner, no notice is necessary, as has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another { (2004) 4 S.C.C. 245 } in para 14, which is quoted herein below: “14. I The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of en‘ecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee 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 if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get hustrated. The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a dih‘erenf division is a matter for the employer to consider depending. upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems facedhy theadministrah'on. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions tiled before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.” i EEL!’ 7. The Supreme Gomt in the case of State of‘U.P. and another Vs. Siya Ram and another {(2004) 7 S.C.C. 405) has observed as under: No government servant or employee‘of a public undertaking ‘ has any legal nght to be posted forever at any 011e paxtlcular place or place of 131$ ch01ce amce nansfer of a particular employee appomted to the class 01 category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of serviCe, necessary too in public interest and eliiciency in the public administration Unless an ordel of transfer rs shown to be an outcome of mala tide exermse or stated to be m Vlolatlon of statutory provisions prohibltmg any such nansfer, the courts or the tribunals nonnally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though theyvwere appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that _ of the employerlmanagement, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan.” 8. The Supreme Courtin the case of Rajendra Rny Vs. Union of India and another (AIR 1993 S C, 1236), has observed as under : .. .It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a snaight-cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala tide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions... » / i ‘ i 9. For the discussions made hereinabove, this petition deserves to be and is dismissed. In the facts of the case, no order as to costs. X ‘ Sd/- . ‘x Satish 1L AgnihOm i Judge Thakur