NARAYAN CH. DEB Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is employed in the State Government as a Forest Guard, has challenged his order of transfer dated 11.09.2019. By such order he is posted at Rajnagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in a short span of about 3 months the petitioner is subjected to as many as four transfers which itself is sufficient to demonstrate mala fides on the part of the respondents.

(2.) Previously the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was disposed of by an order dated 20.11.2019. The petitioner was permitted to make a representation to the department which would be considered and till then the order of transfer would be kept in abeyance. The representation that the petitioner made came to be disposed of by impugned order dated 01-12-2019 pointing out that the petitioner had previously not joined the places of transfer and had proceeded on leave. He was at Agartala for a long period of time and his transfer out of Agartala was overdue. Inter alia on such grounds his request for cancelling the transfer order was rejected.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find the petitioner has made out any ground for interference. The fact that the post in question is transferable is not in dispute. The petitioner's main ground for challenge is that the respondents had subjected the petitioner to frequent transfers in a short span. That by itself, in the present case would not constitute mala fides. Firstly, no officer in personal capacity is joined as a respondent to answer the allegations of mala fides. If the petitioner wanted to allege and establish personal mala fides, the concerned officer who may be inimical to the petitioner and whose action according to the petitioner were actuated by mala fides, had to be joined in personal capacity to answer such allegations. This having not been done, the ground of factual mala fides cannot be entertained.