THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 523 of 2010. Ashok Kumar S/O Late Sri Patram Singh, R/O Indian Veterinary Research Institute Campus Mukteshwar, District Nainital. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research through its Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2. Director IVRI (Indian Veterinary Research Institute) Izat Nagar, U.P. 3. Station Incharge, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Mukteshwar, District Nainital. …Respondents. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. D.S.Mehta, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V.B.S.Negi, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondents. Date August 19, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned transfer order dated 15.4.2010 (Annexure-6) and consequential relieving order dated 15.5.2010 (Annexure-7). B. Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders and allow the petitioner to work at Mukteshwar, District Nainital. C. Issue any other direction or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. D. Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order appears to have been passed on the basis of a memo dated 13th April 2010 issued by the Station-in-Charge of IVRI 2 Mukteshwar thereby asking the petitioner to explain the reason why the administrative action be not taken. According to the petitioner, the reply to the memo issued to the petitioner was given on 15-4-2010 and on the same day, the petitioner has been transferred from I.V.R.I. Campus Mukteshwar to I.V.R.I. Campus Bangalore and he was relieved on the same day as revealed from the office order passed on 15th May, 2010 (Annexure-7 to the petition). The petitioner has relied upon a Circular dated 15th January 2002 issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi to the Director, All the Institute/NRCs/PDs/etc. regarding intra-institutional transfer of group C & D staff, which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the petition. In paragraph no.2 thereof, it is provided that “in case where complaints/allegations are received against the employees belonging to Group C & D the Director of the Institute may order investigations into the allegations and on the basis of the findings of the investigations/inquiry, disciplinary action should be taken under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. In any case, the intra- institutional transfer as an alternative to the disciplinary action should not be resorted to by the Directors of the Institutes.” On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit has been filed. In paragraph no. 13 the following averments have been made:- “13. That in reply to the contents of Para 19 & 20 of the writ petition it is stated that the ICAR order no. 18-2/2002/Estt-IV dated 15.1.2002 does not pertain in the case of transfer of the petitioner, UDC as competent authority has been pleased to transfer the petitioner in public interest to Regional Campus, Bangalore from Regional Campus Mukteshwar and not from Regional Station/Campus to Head Quarter at IVRI Izatnagar, hence the aforesaid order 15.1.2002 will not apply in the present case.” A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was posted in the Mukteshar Centre in July, 2009. During one-year period only, he has been transferred to Bangalore. It is obvious from the impugned transfer order that the transfer order has been made by the 3 Director after the petitioner had submitted his reply against the allegations made in the memo. In the instant case, the said circular is fully applicable to the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already made a representation to the Director, IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly on 1-5-2010 (Annexure-9 to the petition), wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is a class III employee and his children are studying in Mukteshwar and the same is pending for disposal. Learned counsel has urged that a direction may be issued to the Director concerned to decide the representation In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of things as well as in the interest of justice that the Director concerned shall decide the representation made by the petitioner (Annexure-9) expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The Director, IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly, while deciding the representation, shall also consider the family circumstances as mentioned in the representation by the petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP