NARENDRA KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order of transfer dated 8 -8 -2001 by which the petitioner was transferred from district Chandauli to Lucknow and was attached with the office of Transport Commissioner. U.P.

(2.) THE petitioner was previously working as Incharge Assistant Regional Transport Officer at Varanasi but he was transferred to the headquarters at Lucknow on 20 -4 -2001. On 15 -6 -2001 he was again transferred as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) Chandauli. By the impugned order dated 8 -8 -2001 he was transferred to Lucknow and was attached to the headquarters.

(3.) SRI T.P. Singh has next contended that the petitioner had been rendering a very good service at Chandauli as during his tenure he checked a large number of vehicles and realised more revenue for the State. He has further urged that on account of the strict measures adopted by the petitioner, certain political persons felt aggrieved and he was transferred on their behest. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on some documents which show that the transport department earned more revenue in June -July 2001 as compared to the amount realised in the same period in the year 2000. Some figures have also been given regarding the number of vehicles which were checked and thereafter seized and challaned by the petitioner. The State has filed several counter affidavits wherein it is averred that by the mere fact that more revenue was earned by the department in June -July 2001, no inference can be drawn that the same was on account of any exceptional measures adopted by the petitioner. The counter affidavits filed by the State show that the fee structure had been enhanced and had undergone a substantial change after March. 2001 and therefore, realisation of revenue thereafter i.e. in the months June -July 2001 was bound to be more than what it was in the corresponding period of the year 2000. We have examined various affidavits and they do show that there was amendment in the fee structure in March 2001 and this was bound to result in automatic enhancement in the amount realised by the department. Certain other features have also been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State. A system of Golden Pass was introduced with effect from 1 -8 -2001 and the period of its validity was three months. This system resulted in very substantial increase in the revenue in the month of August when the transport operators obtained the Golden Pass. Figures have also been given regarding the income from this source in September and October where there was a decline and reason being that the Golden Pass remains valid for three months and those who had taken a Golden Pass in August were not required to pay anything further in the months of September and October. The assertion of the petitioner is that he had checked a large number of vehicles during the short period he was posted at Chandauli which showed that he was rendering a good job. This assertion is denied by the respondent -State. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Transport Commissioner. U.P. personally came to Chandauli and organised a special checking drive for two days i.e. on 29th and 30th July in which 252 vehicles were seized. However in the remaining 28 days i.e. from 1st to 28th July, when the petitioner alone was the Incharge and was responsible for checking of vehicles, the total number of vehicles seized was 176. Therefore, these facts clearly show that the assertion of the petitioner that he had been doing very good work or that on account of his efforts realisation of the revenue by the State was substantially higher than in the corresponding period of the previous year is not correct.