DUKE HILBERT. CH. MOMIN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.09.07 as well as order dated 29.09.08 issued by the Director of Fisheries, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

(2.) The petitioner's case in nut shell is that, "the instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being preferred by a petitioner who is aggrieved by the Transfer Order dated 14.09.07 issued by the Respondent No. 2. The petitioner who is an L.D. Assistant in the Office of the Superintendent of Fisheries, Williamnagar despite in a most sincere manner has invited the wrath of his superiors for reasons best known to them and as such, the above said transfer order transferring him to Nongpoh i.e. different districts was issued to him even before he complete 3 years in his present place of posting. However, the incumbent in whose place the petitioner was supposed to join did not leave his place of posting; therefore, the petitioner though released from his post i.e. from Jamge could not join in Nongpoh. In the meantime, a gradation list is published wherein the petitioner is placed below his juniors. Several representations were filed, an Inquiry Officer has been appointed twice to inquire into the matter and to submit the report within a month. But till date no inquiry is conducted, thus the petitioner is left to remain unemployed artificially till date. A Writ petition registered as W.P.(C) (SH) of 2010 was filed earlier but in the course of hearing, a defect in the prayer portion was detected and as such the same was withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh. Hence this instant petition with various prayers."

(3.) Mr. R Kar, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner joined service in the Office of the Directorate of Fisheries as LDA through DSC and was performing his duties with sincerity and diligently. In spite of his sincerity and diligently in service, he has been transferred from one District to another District which is against the rules and norms. Thereafter, the petitioner was not allowed to join any post nor he has been suspended, as a result, he remained unemployed artificially till date. The learned counsel also contended that, non-functioning of duties by the petitioner during this period is not due to his fault but purely due to the negligence on the part of the respondents and further submitted that, inquiry was ordered but without any result or outcome.