LAWS(GAU)-2004-8-1

RIMMAR TASO Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Decided On August 12, 2004
RIMMAR TASO Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is against an order dated 16.6.2004 transferring the writ petitioner from Yomcha P. W.D. Division to the Office of the Chief Engineer, West Zone at Itanagar. By the aforesaid order dated 16.6.2004, the respondent No. 4 has been brought in place of the petitioner in the P. W.D. Division at Yomcha.

(2.) To appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, a brief recital of the facts would be necessary. The starting point of the proposed recital of the essential facts may reasonably commence from 10.9.2003, on which date the petitioner was transferred from Yomcha Division to Mriyang Division. It may be noticed at this stage that the petitioner, prior to his transfer by order dated 10.9.2003, had served at Yomcha only for a period of 3 months. Aggrieved by the aforesaid transfer order dated 10.9.2003, the petitioner instituted a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C)339(AP)2003. The aforesaid writ proceeding was answered by this Court by order dated 25.5.2004 interfering with and setting aside the transfer order dated 10.9.2003. A perusal of the order dated 25.5.2004 passed by this Court would go to show that the transfer order dated 10.9.2003 was set aside by this Court on two primary grounds. Firstly, it was held by this Court that the reasons shown by the Respondent State for passing the transfer order dated 10.9.2003 did not justify the departure made from the norms laid down in the transfer policy of the State as circulated by Office Memorandum dated 2.6.1998. Additionally, it was held by this Court that the transfer made by order dated 10.9.2003 was at the instance of the Minister-in-Charge of the Power Department and no satisfactory reasons or materials were laid before the Court to show that the aforesaid transfer was made in the public interest. After WP(C)339(AP)2003 was closed by this Court, as noticed above, the impugned transfer order has been passed on 16.6.2004 transferring the petitioner, this time, to the Office of the Chief Engineer, west Zone at Itanagar and once against being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has instituted the present writ proceeding calling into question the aforesaid order dated 16.6.2004.

(3.) Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in support of the challenge made in the present writ petition, has contended the transfer order to be contrary to the earlier order of this Court dated 25.5.2004 passed in WP(C)339(AP)2003. Learned counsel has further placed before this Court Clauses (1)(b) and (f) of the transfer policy, as circulated by Office Memorandum dated 2.6.1998, to contend that the transfer order dated 16.6.2004 is contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 2.6.1998. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel has submitted that under Clause (1)(b) of the Office Memorandum dated 2.6.1998, the normal tenure of 3 years of a Government Servant in any particular location could be departed from and a transfer could be made before the expiry of the aforesaid period of 3 years, on the grounds specified in the aforesaid Clause (1)(b) of the aforesaid Office Memorandum. In terms of the aforesaid Clause (1)(b) aforesaid Office Memorandum, the exceptions to the normal rule of a 3 years tenure of a Government Servant are when a vacancy is required to be filled up on account of the specialised skill/expertise and knowledge acquired by a Government Servant or on compassionate or health grounds. Learned counsel has argued that, on the reasons stated in the affidavit, none of the aforesaid exceptions to the normal rule of a 3 years tenure is made out and, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner made by order dated 16.6.2004 is contrary to the transfer policy. Learned counsel has argued that what have been spelt out in Clause (1)(b) of the Office Memorandum dated. 2.6.1998 are the laid down norms which constitute a self imposed limitation on the power of the authority to transfer a civil servant before the expiry of his normal tenure of 3 years and, therefore, this Court must hold that the action of the State must necessarily conform to such laid down norms which cannot be departed from. Learned counsel has further argued that in the order dated 25.5.2004 passed by this Court in WP(C)339(AP)2003, the above question has been answered in the affirmative by the Bench hearing the aforesaid writ petition and it has been held that there can be no departure from the exceptions spelt out in Clause (1)(b) of the Office Memorandum dated 2.6.1998. Learned counsel has further argued that the impugned transfer order would be bad in law, inasmuch as, the Respondent No. 4 has been posted in his home station and also on account of the fact that the impugned transfer has been made during the mid season, both of which are in violation of the terms of the Office Memorandum dated 26.1998. Lastly, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, on perusal of the records placed before the Court by the learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that the transfer having been made on account of certain complaints stated to have been received against the writ petitioner, the impugned order of transfer dated 16.6.2004 is contrary to Clause (1)(f) of he transfer policy, which stipulates that all such complaints should be proceeded against departmentally and an officer should not be transferred on the basis of a complaint received, inasmuch as, such a transfer enables the officer to carry the 'evil' from his earlier place of posting to the new place of posting as may have been ordered.