SANTOSH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Investigator in the office of the District Social Welfare Officer, Hisar, whereas her husband-Padam Kumar was then posted as a lecturer in Military Science in Government College, Hisar. The petitioner's case is that her husband had opposed respondent No. 4, Shri Kanwal Singh, Development and Panchayat Minister, Haryana, in the last assembly elections in Haryana by supporting one Chatter Pal, who is stated to be a friend of her husband. Respondent No. 4, accordingly, was unhappy with the petitioner and her family and manoeuvered the transfer of Padam Kumar, husband of the petitioner from Hisar to Meham. This transfer was, however, cancelled and the petitioner's husband was reposted at Hisar on a representation made to the Chief Minister, Respondent No. 4 thereafter arranged for the transfer of the petitioner from Hisar to Chandigarh vide order Annexure P-3 dated 12. 5. 1997. The petitioner's mother represented to the Director as well as to the Chief Minister against this transfer and though a sympathetic view was in the offing yet respondent No. 4 once again intervened and sent a note dated 3. 6. 1997 to the Department that her transfer should not be cancelled as she had been transferred on account of various complaints that had been made against her. It is also the case of the petitioner that as she and her husband had got separated on account of these two transfers, this was contrary to the Government instructions with regard to the adjustment of couple cases.

(2.) ON notice of motion, various replies have been put in Court. In the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, it has been pleaded that the petitioner had put in almost 4-1/2 years of service at Hisar and as such her transfer was justified. It has further been pleaded that the transfer policy was merely a guideline and could not confer any inflexible right on the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 has also put in his reply and it has been averred by him that the petitioner's transfer had been effected on account of the fact that she and her husband had been taking an active part in politics and there were also a number of complaints against her. It had been denied that the transfer of the petitioner had been manoeuvred by him though it has been admitted that a note dated 3. 6. 1997 had been sent by him to the Local Government Minister asking him not to cancel the transfer of the petitioner from Hisar to Chandigarh. The petitioner has also filed a replication to the written statement filed by respondent No. 4 and reference has been made to another note dated 16. 6. 1997, in which it had been recommended that Padma Sharma, the petitioner's husband, should be transferred to a place farthest from Hisar. A reply has also been put to the replication by respondent No. 4 and it has been admitted that the note dated 16. 6. 1997 had infact been sent to the Local Government Minister and a complaint annexure R-l/t has also been put with this pleading to show that the transfer was justified.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to succeed. As would be evident from what has been narrated above, interference would be called for in the present case in the eventuality that a case of mala fides was spelt out against respondent No. 4. It has been admitted by him that Padam Kumar, the petitioner's husband and Chatter Pal, against whom he had fought an election were friends and that there had been an unpleasant scene at the time of counting of votes in May, 1996, in which Chatter Pal had lost and respondent No. 4 been declared elected. In this regard the two notes, referred to above, become significant and they are reproduced below :