DILAWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated April 7, 2006 (P-7) transferring the petitioner fourth time within a span of eight months. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner was promoted as District Food and Supply Officer on December 30, 2003. He served at Kaithal till the year 2005 and thereafter he was transferred to Gurgaon on August 2, 2005 (P-1). After about 40 days, the petitioner was transferred from Gurgaon to Narnaul on September 13, 2005 (P-2). After about 70 days, he was transferred from Narnaul to Faridabad (P-3) and after about 104 days, he was transferred from Faridabad to Chandigarh. The allegations of the petitioner in paras 6, 7 and 8 are that the petitioner started conducting vide ranging raids to curb rampant corruption and irregularities which were committed by the licencees of the respondent-Department. He checked, 51 Petrol pumps in the month of March 2006 alone. He also conducted raids at the Depots meant for public distribution of ration articles at subsidized rates to check the prevailing irregularities and corruption. Various criminal cases were registered against defaulting depot holders and it was found that several influential persons were running depots under the fake names of their relatives. He submitted report against 16 depot holders and recommended severe action against them. He discovered serious irregularities in three other depots and the action was recommended against them also. The petitioner also submitted a report against two L.P.G. Agencies which were causing huge financial loss to the Government and were detriment to the public at large. Similar averments have been made in para 8 of the writ petition.

(2.) In the written statement the aforementioned facts have not been controverted and the reply to the aforementioned para can be summed up with one sentence that it is a matter of record or that the petitioner was performing his official duty. The only defence raised is that the transfer has been made on administrative grounds in the exigency of service. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner is a litigious person and had earlier also filed a writ petition, namely, C.W.P. No. 1 1257 of 2001, decided on August 2, 2001.

(3.) We have repeatedly asked the learned State counsel the basic reason for transferring the petitioner at such a frequency. However, no satisfactory reply has been given by him. Accordingly, we proceed to consider the matter.