BALRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By relying upon the judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Damyanti Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, 2008 2 UD 517, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an employee can be transferred on administrative ground only in three cases (i) if there are serious complaints against the person sought to be transferred or (ii) if the person sought to be transferred has misbehaved with superior officers or (iii) if the person sought to be transferred has not been taking interest in the work. He submitted that none of these conditions apply in the petitioner's case and he has illegally been transferred on administrative ground. He further submitted that in the Enquiry Report dated 24.08.2012, nothing was found against the petitioner.

(2.) On 19.09.2012, the matter was adjourned for today. Today, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents submitted that there are serious charges against the petitioner and several complaints have been sent by the member of locality against the petitioner. He submitted that on the basis of the said complaints, after enquiring the matter, the transferring authority reached to the conclusion that the petitioner should be transferred from the present place of posting. Learned Brief Holder for the State further submitted that the respondents have conducted a detailed enquiry, in which the was found guilty. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The police personnel in civil police have direct contact with the people of the area. If complaints are made by the residents of the area against the police personnel and the transferring authority reaches to the conclusion that due to the presence of such employee at that place, the image of the department is going down, in my view, this reason is sufficient to transfer him to another place. Considering this fact, I am not inclined to stay the impugned transfer order. Consequently, the stay application (CLMA No. 9941 of 2012) stands rejected. List this matter after three weeks. By that time, respondents may file counter affidavit.