KHANINDRA KUMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 2.3.95 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 4449/94, thereby dismissing the same.

(2.) The writ petitioner appellant, a Range Forest Officer, filed a writ petition challenging his transfer order dated 23.8.94, marked Annexure-II on grounds of mala fide and breach of norms governing transfer. It was the appellant's case that he hai hardly completed one year as Range Forest Officer at Loharghat Range before being transferred and posted as attached Officer to the Kamrup West Division at Guwahati. No grounds or reasons were recorded for such a transfer and charge was unilaterally taken over by respondent No. 4, with the help of a Magistrate tin face of letter dated 5.11.94, requesting the respondent No. 4 to take over charge on 10.11.94. The appellant has attributed this "high-handed" action to respondent No. 3 who bore a grudge against him and was keen to see that he was transferred from Loharghat. The Range Forest Office at Loharghat was locked on 8.11.94. It is also alleged that the appellant was called a 'thief by the respondent No. 3 in his office chamber in presence of some people some time in the month of August, 1994, and since then had stopped payments of Civil advance to the appellant. So much so, his salary for the months of August and September, 1994 had also been withheld. The respondent No. 3 was thus biased against him.

(3.) It is the respondent No. 3 who has sworn a counter-affidavit-in-opposition, on behalf of the respondent State, denying the allegations made by the appellant, and placing a few more facts about his acts of commission and omissions justifying the transfer. It is supported by documents. As for alleged 'secrets' reports made by him toe respondent No. 3 has clarified that he had no option or alternative but to bring it to the notice of the higher authorities of several lapses on the part of the appellant in the discharge of his duties by writing confidential letters. One such letter is dated 9.8.94 filed as Annexure-3 along with his affidavit. The gist of this confidential letter is that the appellant was grossly negligent in the discharge of duties, he remained unauthorise absent from his head-quarters, misused the Govt. jeep allotted to him for patrolling in the range to curb illegal felling and theft of timber in making trips to Guwahati where he unauthorisedly remained for weeks frequently abstaining from duty. He was charged with collusion and connivance of theft of logs/stumps, no offence reports were submitted by him to the D.F.O. with the result that trucks, seized in connection with commission of forest offences were released without informing the D.F.O. although they were liable to be confiscated. Thus he was suspected to be involved in harping up the offences, in collusion with the smugglers of forest produce for wrong full gain. Annexure-III makes a sordid reading about appellant's activities.