SAHNGOO RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The connected together are these four writ petitions filed by one and the same writ petitioners. The grounds on which the reliefs have been claimed are more or less common in all the petitions and, therefore, the writ petitions can be disposed of conveniently by a composite judgment and order to which the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties have nodded in approval and hence we proceed to decide all the writ petitions by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts of each case may be itemised briefly for better appreciation of the controversy involved in these cases.

(3.) In writ petition No. 1910 of 1999 under challenge is the order dated 8.1.99 (Annexure 14) by means of which the petitioner was transferred from Jhansi to Lucknow at the Headquarter. The case of the petitioner is that by order dated 6.3.98, the petitioner was transferred from Head-quarter Lucknow to Jhansi and was given officiating charge of Superintending Engineer with effect from 15.4.98; the Minister, Department of Rural Engineering and Minor Irrigation while touring districts under the jurisdiction of the petitioner between 12.12.98 and 15.12.98, inspected the godown, sites and offices etc. of the Minor Irrigation Department the charge of which had passed on to the petitioner on 15.4.98 at the instance of the Minister himself; that the directions and orders contained in the Inspection Notes prepared on the spot were fully complied to the letter and spirit to the satisfaction of the Minister; that by means of an order, the petitioner was required to furnish certain information by presenting himself in person before the Minister at Lucknow which he complied with; that the petitioner, as averred in para 29 of the writ petition, was asked to submit proposal for his (petitioner) attachment to the Head quarter and for posting of some officer equipped with experience in his place; that by FAX message dated 24.12.98 (Annexure 12), the District Magistrate of the district was informed that the Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineer had been replaced and they be asked to make overcharges of their respective offices to the new incumbents though order of transfer was passed on 8.1.99; that the petitioner has been penalised for no fault of his own but for the personal and political malevolence; that the Minister has passed orders impugned herein for reason born of malafides and, therefore, the impugned orders are apt to the quashed. While entertaining the writ petitions, this Court passed the interim order dated 3.2.99 directing the parties to maintain status quo till 24.2.99 in so far as transfer order dated 8.1.99 was concerned. The interim order was extended from time to time. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit to which the petitioner has filed his reply.