PABITRA KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While serving as Executive Engineer, PWD, Lakhimpur State Road Division, the Petitioner has been transferred and posted by the impugned order, dated 10.06.2010, as Executive Engineer, PWD, Sonitpur AACP Division. By the impugned order, Respondent No. 5 herein who had been functioning as Executive Engineer (Civil), PWD, on deputation to Finance Department, as Deputy Director (Technical) in the Directorate of Financial Institution, has been reverted to his parent department and posted as Executive Engineer, PWD, Lakhimpur State Road Division, i.e., the post, which the Petitioner is presently holding. Aggrieved by the said order of transfer, the Petitioner has impugned the same in this writ application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to get the said transfer order set aside and quashed.

(2.) The Petitioner's case is, in brief, thus: By order, dated 19.12.2008, the Petitioner came to be posted as Executive Engineer, PWD, Lakhimpur State Road Division, and though he has not completed three years of normal tenure at the said place of posting, he is sought to be transferred by the impugned order, dated 10.06.2010. The said transfer order has been made at the behest of one contractor, namely, Sri Naruttam Changmai (who stands impleaded as Respondent No. 8) and the one Sri Parimal Sen, a Junior Engineer at Lakhimpur State Road Division. The said Sri Parimal Sen, who stands impleaded as Respondent No. 7, has been working as Junior Engineer, for the last 27 years. He has also been holding the charge of the office of the SDO (Technical), though he is not eligible to function as the SDO (Technical) inasmuch as the minimum rank for the said post of SDO is Assistant Executive Engineer and a Junior Engineer is not qualified to hold the said post of SDO (Technical). It is the SDO (Technical), who is responsible for technically checking the bills. Upon joining the post as Executive Engineer, PWD, Lakhimpur State Road Division, when the Petitioner found irregularities in the discharge of duties of Respondent No. 7 and having also learnt that Respondent No. 7 was very closely associated with Respondent No. 8 and had been helping Respondent No. 8 in getting erroneous bills passed, the Petitioner objected thereto and brought one Sri Nobel Deuri, Assistant Executive Engineer, Ghilamara Sub-Division, in the post of SDO (Technical), but till the date of filing of the writ petition, Respondent No. 7 had not handed over the charge of the office of the SDO (Technical) to Sri Nobel Deuri. The Petitioner had also deducted, from the bills of Respondent No. 8, some amount as liquidated damages for not completing the contract works allotted to the Respondent No. 8, namely, Sri Naruttam Changmai, and, thus, Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have combined together and it is as a result of their collusion that the Petitioner has got transferred from Lakhimpur State Road Division. The said order of transfer is also illegal inasmuch as the transfer of a Government employee needs, according to the relevant policy decision and guidelines, approval of the Chief Minister if the employee, sought to be transferred, has not completed three years of normal tenure at the given place. In the case of the Petitioner, no such approval was, however, obtained. The impugned transfer order, reiterates the Petitioner, is the fall out of his resistance to the illegal and arbitrary actions of Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and it is they, who got the Petitioner transferred. The Petitioner is under medical treatment and he has been advised complete bed rest on his health ground. The transfer order, therefore, needs to be interfered with. By an order, dated 30.06.2010, passed in this writ petition, the impugned order of transfer has been stayed.

(3.) The writ petition has been resisted by the State Respondents, namely, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The writ petition has also been resisted by Respondent No. 5, and Respondent No. 7, who, as an Assistant Engineer, has allegedly been helping Respondent No. 8, who is a contractor. As far as Respondent No. 8 is concerned, he has chosen not to resist the writ petition.