RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point which needs determination in this writ petition is - whether the Government/competent authority is required to hold an inquiry or give an opportunity of hearing to an employee before effecting his transfer on the basis of a complaint.

(2.) A learned Single Judge of this Court felt that the view taken by this Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Haryana, 1991 (1) RSJ 285, and the observations made in N.S. Bhullar v. State Electricity Board, 1991 (1) SLR 378 do not represent the correct position of law. He, therefore, directed on 8.6,1991 that this case be placed before a larger Bench and this is how the matter has come before us for decision.

(3.) AFTER the passing of order dated 13.2.1991 by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner reported for duty at Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, but he was not allowed to join. He, therefore, made representation to the higher authorities for being allowed to join the duties. On 19.2.1991, the impugned order came to be passed by the Government transferring the petitioner from Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to Improvement Trust Patiala. At the same time, the Government upgraded the post of Executive Officer of Improvement Trust, Patiala, from Class -II to Class -I. The petitioner challenged this order on the ground of mala fides and arbitrariness. He pleaded that the impugned order of transfer is against the instructions issued by the Government on 13.10.1990 because they prohibit the transfer of an employee who is to retire from service within next 10 years. The case of the petitioner is that the order of transfer (Annexure P -6) is against the instructions aforesaid inasmuch as it is only one year earlier that he had been transferred from Pathankot to Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, and it is only 14 months prior to his superannuation that the order in question was passed. The petitioner also contended that Improvement Trust, Patiala, is a Class -II Trust which fact would be clear from notification issued by the Local Government Department, Punjab, dated 23rd October, 1978, wherein Improvement Trust, Patiala, is mentioned at serial No. 6 and is described to be a Class -II Improvement Trust. According to the petitioner, classification of Improvement Trust, Patiala, has not been changed and to his knowledge no formal order expressed in the name of the President of India had been issued by respondent No. 1 upgrading the post of Executive Officer of Improvement Trust, Patiala, from Class -II post to Class -I post.