SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned transfer order, borne in Annexure P-1, becomes challenged by the writ petitioner, and, therethrough, the writ petitioner becomes transferred from Tehsil Office, Indora, to, the office of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., and, also therethrough, corespondent No.3, one Onkar Singh, becomes posted in substitution, of, the writ petitioner, hence at, Tehsil Office, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. The writ petitioner casts a challenge, upon, the impugned transfer order, on, the ground, (a) vis-a-vis, it per se, being incapricious, and, arbitrary, inasmuch, as, evidently his transfer being done without, the, prior approval of the competent authority, (b) and, more so, no joining time, and, TTA becoming granted, to, the writ petitioner, (c) and, despite the petitioner not completing, his normal period of three years at Tehsil Office, Indora, and, yet his being transferred much prior thereto, to, the Office of Divisional Com missioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., (d) the petitioner despite being left with only eight months of service, hence, the respondents, breaching the relevant echoing, as, borne in the Transfer Policy, inasmuch, as, it carrying a diktat against any public servant, who has the afore outstanding period, in, service, his being not amenable, for, becoming transferred.

(2.) Respondent No.3, one Onkar Singh, alike the petitioner has disclosed, in his reply-affidavit, instituted by him to the writ petition, qua his retiring in the month of January, 2021, and, also it is apparent on a reading of the afore reply, meted to the writ petition by co-respondent No.3, vis-a-vis, his joining at Tehsil Office, Indora, and, whereas, the petitioner suppressing, the afore material fact, from this Court, (i) and, his yet obtaining a stay order from this Court, against the implementation, of, the impugned transfer order, borne in Annexure P-1, (ii) thereupon, equities becoming loaded against him, and, whereupon, his writ petition becoming amenable, for, dismissal.

(3.) Even though, the factum of the writ petitioner, suppressing the afore factum of co-respondent No.3, joining at the transferred station, in pursuance to the making of Annexure p-1, does prima facie stand, against the petitioner, and, also estops him to contest, the, validity of making, of, the impugned transfer order, borne in Annexure P-1. However, if from a perusal of the entire record, it appears that the impugned transfer order, is, yet ingrained with a vice of arbitrariness, and, capriciousness, thereupon, the afore suppressed material fact may yet not work adversarially against the writ petitioner.