MUKESH KUMAR SOLANKI HCS SON OF SHRI TULSI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA, CIVIL SECRETARIAT CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a member of the Haryana Civil Service cadre and the Estate Officer of HUDA, has a grievance that the order of transfer effected on 14.02.2012 by the Government of Haryana through the Chief Secretary relieving him from his charge as an Estate Officer and posting him as Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Barwala, is illegal and arbitrary. This order, according to the petitioner, was the result of the complaint which the petitioner had given against the Administrator, HUDA, Parveen Kumar, described in the official capacity as well as in personal capacity and arrayed as respondents 4 and 5. This order of transfer came close on heels to the office order issued by the Administrator sealing the room of the Estate Officer to HUDA. The office order stated that no official of the Estate Office shall hand over any file to the petitioner nor shall any order calling for any file or record be obeyed. The office order is sought to be quashed and the building de-sealed since the petitioner contends that the order of transfer itself has been spirited on account of a complaint which the petitioner has made against the 5th respondent.

(2.) There is a prayer also that the complaint which the petitioner has made, should be properly enquired into. The complaint is said to have been made through e-mail also, setting out averments that the demolition programme (of alleged unauthorized constructions) in different sectors were being ordered orally without any order in writing and that the petitioner has been pressurized to take action for demolition also in respect of areas which are not within the jurisdiction of the petitioner, but which came under other authorities like the DTP (Enforcement) and Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon. The complaint also pertained to an issue of alleged re-allotment of Plot No. 202 against the HUDA rules and policy. Yet another complaint is that the 5th respondent had forced the petitioner to send a proposal for allotment by tender of house to house collection of garbage to a person by name Satyajit, who was close to the 5th respondent and also to send for a proposal to purchase vehicle for the same. Another complaint was that the petitioner had also been forced to file an affidavit in yet another writ petition filed against HUDA to the effect that the parking in Sector 29, Gurgaon was to be free of cost, even though the same had been allotted through public tender and the successful tender had also been deposited the tender amount of three months' advance and also executed a tender agreement. The petitioner has also the complaint to make that the 5th respondent called him by his caste name and wanted him to immediately go on leave so that he may purify the place by performing havan. The petitioner would state that he had been compelled to go on leave from 04.02.2012 to 12.02.2012 as per the verbal direction of the 5th respondent.

(3.) The reply has been given by Mr. Dhan Singh, Deputy Secretary to Government Haryana, Personnel Department, on behalf of respondent No. 1. The statement is cryptic in the sense that the transfer is said to have been made on account of administrative exigency, since Amardeep Jain, HCS, working as Sub Divisional Officer (c), Hisar was holding additional charge of Sub Divisional Officer (c), Barwala. Hence there was an imperative for the posting of some officer permanently. To explain that the order of transfer has been made without reference to a complaint alleged to have been given on 13.02.2012, the Deputy Secretary would state that the complaint to the petitioner itself had been received on 14.02.2012 in the office. The letter sent on 13.02.2012 seeking for certain clarifications whether the office order sealing the premise on 13.02.2012 issued by the 5th respondent had been done under the instructions of the Chief Administrator, had been endorsed to the Chief Secretary on 22.02.2012. A factual report had also been prepared on 09.03.2012. The respondents 1 and 2 would deny that the 5th respondent was in any way responsible for causing transfer to be made, but the transfer order had been filed only on administrative grounds. The respondents would vehemently deny that the transfer was being made as a measure of punishment and would reiterate the legal position that the transfer was an incident of service and there is no scope for judicial review.