NYAKPU YANGFO Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner as well as Mr. S. Saikia, learned State Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Also heard Mr. D. Mozumder, learned senior counsel representing respondent no. 3. In view of the order that is being passed today, service of notice on respondent nos. 4 and 5 are not deemed necessary and the present appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

(2.) At a time when the appellant Sri Nyakpu Yangfo was discharging duties as Executive Engineer on functional basis, he was issued with the transfer order dated 28.07.2017, transferring him from PWD Seppa Division, East Kameng District, to PWD Aalo Circle, West Siang District, in the same capacity. In his place the respondent no. 3 Sri Nich Tadar, who is an Executive Engineer in substantive capacity, was brought from Sagalee Circle. On the date when the transfer order was issued, the appellant had completed two year term of posting at PWD Seppa Division.

(3.) The transfer order dated 28.07.2017 was put to test by the appellant in WP(C) 602(AP)/2017 alleging malafide, in that, the said transfer order was issued at the behest of the respondent nos. 4 and 5, who are Parliamentary Secretaries looking after Tax and Excise and Tourism respectively under the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. Statement in this regard is made at paragraph 9 of the writ petition to the effect that the transfer order dated 28.07.2017 was passed on the basis of the U.O. Note dated 14.05.2017 issued by the said respondent nos. 4 and 5. Contention made is that the transfer order so issued at their behest was designed to harass the appellant as he refused to comply with their dictates to make payment to the contractors in respect of the construction of the approach road from Khade Nallah to Jawa (Weshi-II) Village. Statement is also made at paragraph 6 of the additional affidavit filed by the appellant in the writ proceedings wherein it is alleged that in respect of construction of the approach road, the appellant had physically inspected the work and found the entry in the Measurement Book to be inconsistent with the actual work done. Although payment was made on the basis of the actual work done, however, the respondent no. 4 had directed the appellant to make full payment to the contractors as per the initial entry in the Measurement Book. The appellant not having succumbed to the pressure generated by the respondent no. 4, the resultant action was the issuance of the U.O. Note dated 14.05.2017. Further contention made is that although transfer is an incidence of service, the respondent State could not have acted upon the U.O. Note to bring in respondent no. 3 to PWD Seppa Division as it is not in the domain of respondent nos. 4 and 5 to suggest the name of any person for being posted at Seppa.