HARISH RAUTELA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned Counsel of the petitioner on the urgency application (IA 3612/2015), it is hereby allowed. On the insistence of learned Counsel for the petitioner and with the consent of learned State Counsel, the matter is taken for final hearing today itself.

(2.) Having heard learned Counsel of the parties, it transpires that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Collectorate of District Udham Singh at Rudrapur way back in the year 1983. Working on different posts and in different capacities and having his attachment in different offices in the same city Rudrapur, the petitioner ultimately was promoted on 23.5.2011 in the Collectorate itself and became the Administrative Officer. He was transferred on 13.7.2015 along with many other Administrative Officers working in the same district. The petitioner was sent to Kashipur to work as Administrative Officer there, but in his transfer order, inter alia, it was marked that the transfer order is on the basis of complaints. Feeling annoyed, petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Damyanti Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, 2008 2 UD 517, wherein the opinion was expressed by the Full Bench that even though a transfer order on administrative ground per se is not bad in law, no person can be transferred on an administrative ground unless before issuing the transfer order, the Authority competent to transfer has arrived at and recorded his satisfaction, upon due verification and confirmation, about the existence and truthfulness of anyone of the three factors/grounds/considerations warranting the transfer of the person concerned.