DINESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramesrt Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for and on behalf of the official opposite parties.

(2.) The submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that present transfer is not a routine transfer and the same has been passed by way of punishment as well as with the mala fide intention, on the basis of the complaint of the opposite party No. 5, who is a Ex-Pradhan and husband of the present Pradhan (opposite party No. 6).

(3.) It is further submitted that the opposite party No. 5 has made complaint to the Collector, district Barabanki on 25.11.2009 requesting him to conduct an enquiry against the Petitioner and take necessary action and on the basis of recommendation of the Collector district Barabanki an enquiry has been conducted by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), district Barabanki and after enquiry he directed the opposite party No. 4 to transfer the Petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the transfer order has been passed on the dictates of Additional District Magistrate, (Finance & Revenue), district Barabanki and the Up-Zila Adhikari, Nawabganj, district Barabanki, the appointing authority has not applied his mind while passing the impugned transfer order. The representation of the Petitioner was also rejected by the District Magistrate, Barabanki in a mechanical manner without appreciating the grievance of the Petitioner.