c^ ^'zr7^~ ;»MfS ^ THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W.P.S. N0. Q^/61 OF 2009 PETITIONER / R.M. Quraishi son of late Rasool Mohammed z<& Quraishi , aged about-54 years, Fisheries ..••\>'f'~^ Inspector in the office of the Assistant \.-'<^y ..• Director , Fisheries, Dhamtari R/o infront of Anjuman School, Chameli Chauk, Aamapara, Dhamtari Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.j. 9/ ,•"" ^''s</'" VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^l 2. 3 State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Agriculture (Fisheries) Department , D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Fisheries , Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Director, Fisheries, Dhamtari Distt. Dham.tari . Prakash Kekate S/ o Not known, Fisheries Inspector, in the offiee of Assistant DireGtor, Kanker Distt. Kanker (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA ^s^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6461 OF 2009 PETITIONER R.M.Quraishi Versus RESPONDENTS Stateof Chhattisgarh andothers (Writ petition underArticles 226 oftheConstitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri SaUsh K. Agnihotri.J. Present: - Shri M. K. Sinha, counsel for thepetitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyerfor the State. ORALORDER (Passed on this 09" day of November, 2009) With the consent of tearned counsel for ttie parties, the petition was heard finally. (2) Being aggrieved by the order dated 24-10-2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department ofAgriculture (Fisheries) has filed the present petition under Artiele 226 of the ConstituUon of India seeking quashing of the order dated 24-10-2009 (Annexure-P/1) and also transfer order dated 29-06-2009 (Annexure P-4). (3) The indisputable facte, in brief, are that on29-06-2009, the petitioner, who is working as Fisheries Inspeetor in the officeof Assistant Director (Fisheries), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari was transferred to the office of the Assistant Director (Fisheries), Jashpur. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S.)No.3301 of 2009 impugning the transfer order dated 29-06- 2009. This Court after hearing learned counselfortheparties, disposedof the petition on 10-07-2009 reserving liberty tothe p&titioner to make a representation within a period of 10 days from the dateof Eeceipt of copy of this order. It was further directed to decide the representation of ttie petitioner in Aaccprdance with law within a period ofthree weeks from the date pf ite receipt. The Deputy Secretary, Department ofAgriculture (Fisheries) by the impugned orderdated 24-10-2009, rejeeted the representaUon 6n the ground that the petitioner has been working at Dhamtari since 1989 ahd thereare complaints against the petitionerand he isengaged in political'acUvities also.Thus, the transfer Order dated 29-06-2009 was passed in public interest and ori administrative exigency. ^fc (4) Learned counsel appearingfbrthepetiti9ners^>hiitsthatthepetitioner is sufferingfrom heart ailments and his chil(jren are alsostudying in Dhamtari. ~~c, $'^-- 2_. ^ (5) I have heard leamed CQunsel for the parties, perused the pleadingsand the documents appended thereto. The respohdent authorities after considering the grievances ofthe petitioner, the first and second representation were allowed and the petitioner was permitted to remain at Dhamtari. THe present impugned order (Annexure P/1) has atso been passed after considering all the aspecte of the matter in its letter and spirit. It is a trite law that transfer policy is a mere guideline and it is not ehforceable by way of a writ in exereise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. This Court is of the view tftat there is no irregularity or illegality or unreasonableness in the order impugned herein. (6) It is well' settled that the transfer of an employee can be made on the basis of complaiFits. Transfets unless they involve any such adverse impact or visitthepers6nsconcentedwithanypenal consequences, are notrequired to be subjerted tc> ^am^Jype'Of scmtiny, approach and assessment as in the ease of dismissal, dtscharge, reverejon or termination and utmost latitude should beleft With the departmgnt concerhed to enforcediscipline, decency and decorum in'public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quatity of pyl3|jc Service^ahd meet untoward administrathre exigencies to ensure smootlt;furicti6ning oftheadministration. Forthe purposes ofeffeeting atransfer, the;question of;holding an enquiry to find out whettier Uiecomplaint was true, is urinecessary andwhat is needed is the prima tecie satisfacUon oif the authority;e®ncemedon th& contemporary reports about the occurrence complained; q^and if th& requirement, as submitted by the respondents, of holding an;elaBorate enc|uiry is to be insisted upon, the very purpose of transferring m sinployee in public interest or exigenGies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. (See Union of India and others vs.fjahardhan Debanath and another) (7) Further, it js well settletithatthetransfer is an incictence ofservice and it is for the employerto dfeGj|e asto where a partlcular officer/employee be ^posted, keeping in view publicinterest as well as administrative exigency. Thjs Court has limited JurisdiGtipn to interfere with the transfer matter, except in the cases of proyed malafide, non-competenceof auWOrity passjng the transfer order and npt being in cohformity with the rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever. Under the provision^ofseMcerules,emplc^rhaSaUthe<pO!V^i®;t<^postan employee at a part'cular place in view of puBlic interest and administratwe 1(2004)4SCC245 •V exigency. (See E. P. Royappa v. StateofTamil Nadu and another2, State of M. P. and another v. S. S. Kourv and othere3 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State ofU.P.&others4). (8) Even otherwise, the transfer is not a punishment but it is an incidence of service. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned order on any other permissible grounds e.g. proved malafide or lack ofcompetence of the office passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned orders are unexceptionable. (9) In view of the foregoing, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at the motion stage itself. —- Sd/- , .i ^Satis^K.,Agniiioiri,;:| ^^! 1S/4 (4)SCC3 3 (1985) 3 SCG 270 4C2007)8SCC150