HIMANSHU JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) This is yet another case of transfer, whereby the petitioner was transferred from Haldwani to Ranikhet on administrative grounds. The petitioner's complaint in this writ petition is threefold. Firstly that the order of transfer is punitive in nature, since it was passed on the very same day on which a notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show-cause as to why he had not taken approval from the Director before informing his next subordinate to issue the Government Order; secondly, the order is vitiated by malafides, since the third respondent was swayed by the fact that the petitioner had not obtained his approval; and thirdly that the order of transfer violates Ss. 18(4) and (5) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017 (hereinafter called the "2017 Act").

(3.) A perusal of the impugned Office Memorandum dtd. 25/6/2019 makes it clear that the petitioner was transferred from the Directorate at Haldwani to Ranikhet, as per the recommendations of the Committee constituted under Sec. 16(1) of the 2017 Act, on administrative grounds. The said order stipulates certain conditions in terms of Sec. 22 of the 2017 Act. No reference is made in the order of transfer regarding any misconduct having been committed by the petitioner. It is difficult for us, therefore, to agree with the submission of Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the impugned order is either stigmatic or punitive in character.