DHANANJAY PRASAD Vs. STATE OF URTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. B. Tewari, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. They are heard.

(2.) PETITIONER Dhananjay Prasad has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs : "a. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 6-/-2006 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Respondent No. 2 and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the PETITIONER for posting in or near Dehradun in light of the transfer policy and Government Order dated 2/-06-2006. B. To issue any other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. C. To award the cost of the writ Pe tition in favour of the PETITIONERs. D. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash ing the order dated 11-08-2006 (Annexure 14) passed by respond ent No. 5. E. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct ing the respondents not to relieve the petitioner in pursuance of or der dated 11-08-2006 from his present place of posting till the pendency of present writ petition. "

(3.) THE respondents, in their coun ter affidavit, have justified the order of petitioner's transfer. Para 2 of the coun ter affidavit reads as follows : "2. That the contents of para 1 of the writ petition, which pertain to the challenge made by the petitioner by way of the present writ petition against the Annexure-1 transfer order dated 6/7/2006 are matters of record. However, it may be submitted in the very beginning that the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents in regard to his impugned transfer are absolutely erroneous and baseless and his writ petition has no merit whatsoever. THE allegation of the petitioner that he has been trans ferred on the dictates of the 4th re spondent Smt. Veena Sekhari, Chief Conservator of Forests, Garhwal is frivolous and ridiculous inasmuch as the transfer order has been issued by the 2nd respondent Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Uttaranchal, Dehradun who is the Head of De partment and the transfer has been made on the recommendation of the Transfer Committee. It goes without saying that the 4th respondent is sub ordinate to both the 2nd respondent as well as the Transfer Committee and therefore, there cannot be any question of transferring the petitioner on the basis of any letter of the 4th respondent as alleged by the peti tioner. THE fact of the matter is that in pursuance of a letter of the higher authority asking the 4th respondent to submit her report regarding three Range Officers including the peti tioner, the 4th respondent submitted her comments to the effect that in view of the inquiries pending against the petitioner, he may either be trans ferred to Tons Forest Division, Purola where there was a vacancy or any where else. THE Transfer Committee taking note of the fact that there were complaints against the petitioner and the matter was being inquired recom mended for the petitioner's transfer to Tons Forest Division, Purola and accordingly the competent authority i. e. the 2nd respondent Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Uttaranchal, Dehradun vide the im pugned order dated 6/7/2006 trans ferred the petitioner from Haridwar Forest Division to Tons Forest Divi sion. Thus, the transfer order does not suffer from any infirmity whatso ever and the writ petition is liable to be summarily rejected with costs. For ready reference and kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court copies of the two complaints dated 25/5/2006 and 21/6/ 2006 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-1 and CA-2 respectively to this affidavit. "