KHAGEN BORGOHAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Lakhimpur to the post of Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Hill Areas Development, Dispur, warrants the interference of this Court. The case of the petitioner is that he was transferred and posted as Chief Executive Officer of Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad by the notification dated 25.3.2013 issued by the Government of Assam in the Department of Personnel (A), which he joined on 9.5.2013. After joining the post, a meeting of the District Planning Committee was held on 30.7.2013 under the Chairmanship of Chairman, Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad (respondent 5) for selection of the schemes submitted by the Panchayat Research Institute (PRI). The meeting was attended by the local Member of Parliament and the Minister for Tribal Affairs, Government of India (respondent 4), the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, the local MLA and other members and representatives selected by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. The meeting unanimously decided to approve the scheme under District Development Programme (DDP) as submitted by the PRI members through the Block Development Officers, Anchalik Panchayats, Gaon Panchayats. However, according to the petitioner, the Committee could not come into consensus in respect of the scheme under the Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGP) as most of the members were not supporting the scheme which was prepared under the guidance and control of the respondent No. 4.

(2.) The petitioner goes on to plead that on 6.8.2013, the Chairman of the Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad (respondent 5) called to her room and asked him to put his signature on a proceeding prepared by her with respect to the scheme covering Rs. 3.04 Crores allegedly made by her in consultation with the respondent No. 4. The petitioner refused to put his signature as he was not aware about the scheme and asked her to hand over the scheme prepared by her, but she refused to do so. He had initially refused to put his signature on the said proceeding, but he later did so under pressure and threat from the respondent No. 4. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to bring the incident to the knowledge of the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department vide his letter dated 7.8.2013. Soon thereafter, the impugned transfer notification was issued. Aggrieved thereby, he is now filing this writ petition for quashing the impugned notification. The writ petition is opposed by all the respondents. The respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have in fact filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. The common thread running through the counter-affidavits of the respondents No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 is that no pressure was ever exerted upon the petitioner nor was there any threat made to him to sign the meeting proceeding in question and that the petitioner was always found to be negligent in discharge of his duty and was not cooperating with them in preparing and executing various development schemes. All of them deny that the transfer order is mala fide or is colourable exercise of power, and they have no role to play in the impugned transfer order. The respondent No. 2, in his affidavit-in-opposition, has disclosed that the Minister, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Assam (P & RD) received a number of complaints against the petitioner from Members of Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad whereupon the Minister took up the matter with the Chief Minister of Assam, who accordingly ordered his transfer. These are the sum and substance of the case of all the respondents.

(3.) Unfolding his submissions, Mr. S.N. Sarma, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, maintains that the impugned notification was issued by way of a punishment to the petitioner for his refusal to sign on the said proceeding prepared by the respondents No. 5 in consultation with the respondent No. 4 and, is, therefore, mala fide. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner is sought to be ousted from his present posting so that the respondents would have free hand to misuse and misappropriate development funds for the poor by preparing false schemes for the Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad: the impugned transfer is nothing but a colourable exercise of power by the respondent authorities. He also submits that the impugned transfer is also violative of the Government rules and guidelines, which say that if any incumbent is about to retire from service within a period of one year, he will not be disturbed from his place of posting: the petitioner is to retire from service within the next nine months. The learned senior counsel further contends that the petitioner is also a victim of frequent transfer inasmuch as he has just completed 3 months in his present place of posting as Chief Executive Officer, Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad and such frequent transfer cannot be sustained in law. He, therefore, vehemently submits that the impugned transfer is liable to be quashed. To fortify his contentions, he relies on the following decisions: