UDIT NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main questions, which arise for consideration are whether transfer of an employee during pendency of disciplinary proceedings is permissible in law or it will ipso facto be treated to be penal in nature and whether in the facts of the present case, the transfer of the petitioner was by way of punishment, warranting interference by this Court.

(2.) The facts in nutshell giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Mandi Sahayak at Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Basti and by order dated 11.02.2014 passed by respondent No.4, he has been transferred, in exegencies of service, to Mandi Samiti, Balrampur on equivalent post.

(3.) It is admitted fact on record that earlier the petitioner was working as Mandi Sahayak, Kalwari Area, Basti. He was shifted to Sub-Mandi Yard, Rudauli, district Basti, by order dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Basti. It was followed by issuance of charge sheet dated 27.01.2014 inter alia on the allegations that in the night of 05.01.2014, the petitioner had played active role in facilitating encroachment of newly constructed chabutras at Navin Mandi Sthal, Basti, which invited the ire of another faction of traders, leading to communal disharmony. The traders made demonstration and gave representation dated 06.01.2014 in writing. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has now been transferred by the impugned order dated 11.02.2014 from Basti to Balrampur, in which it is stated that the petitioner had exerted political pressure and has been extending threats for getting his duty changed and for influencing the departmental proceedings; in such circumstances, it is deemed essential, in exigencies of service, to transfer the petitioner from Basti.