IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2433 of 2009 KAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 06.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. On 22.6.2007 the petitioner was transferred from Dalsingsarai to Jhanjharpur. On 30.6.2008 he was transferred from Jhanjharpur to Valmikinagar. He came to this Court assailing the same in CWJC No. 17095 of 2008. No counter affidavit was filed. This Court only on the ground of transfer in such a short duration set aside the same even while holding that in exceptional circumstances such short duration transfer may also be justified granting liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, if they so desire. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently on 4.2.2009 the petitioner was allowed to rejoin at Jhanjharpur but malafidely on the same day a fresh order was issued transferring him to Dehri-on-sone. The submission is two folds. Firstly, the Respondents are trying to overreach the orders of this Court and punish him for having approached this Court for grant of appropriate relief. Secondly, the order of transfer dated 4.2.2009 is punitive in nature inasmuch as it makes allegation of improper behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant etc. Learned counsel for the State submits that misbehaviour which is the cause for transfer is based on the report dated 14.6.20908, which was not brought by the petitioner before 2 this Court when CWJC No. 17095 of 2008 came to be disposed. In fact the departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the charges on 22.2.2009. This Court is not satisfied that the Respondents are trying to overreach the orders of this Court. If the petitioner had misbehaved as alleged on 14.6.2008 and that is the justification for the transfer when his behaviour was not an issue in CWJC No. 17095 of 2008 and this Court had granted liberty to the Respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere. In so far as the contention of transfer being a punishment is concerned, this Court finds no merit in the same. There is no need at this stage to deal with or dwell upon the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. The issue for consideration presently is an administrative order of transfer considered necessary for a disciplined official environment. Merely because the employee perceives it as a punishment without enquiry warrants no interference by the Court. The issue stands decided by the Supreme Court in (2004) 4 SCC 245 at paragraph 14 as follows : “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 effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an 3 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 an 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 frustrated. The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. ………..” There is no merit in this writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)