PARVESH KUMAR Vs. HP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By medium of the extant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the following substantive reliefs:

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as encapsulated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner, in the year 1998 was appointed, on contractual basis, as Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (respondent No. 1), hereinafter referred to as "the respondents-Board". On 16.10.2018, he was transferred to Electrical Division-1, SDA Complex, Kasumpati, Shimla. Through impugned transfer order (Annexure P-1), dated 01.09.2020, the respondents-Board transferred the petitioner in the Office of Chief Engineer (System Planning) HPSEB Ltd. Shimla, and through Annexure P-II, dated 02.09.2020, he was relieved. As per the petitioner, he has neither completed his normal stint nor there is any complaint against him. The action of the respondents-Board is arbitrary, illegal and the transfer is without any reasonable ground or basis. It is further contended that the petitioner has been relieved in a hasty manner on the next day of impugned order of transfer and he was not even given opportunity to handover the charge. The petitioner has further contended that the impugned order of transfer has been issued during the ban on transfers and thus in violation of the rules. In view of the above backdrop, the petitioner, by maintaining the extant petition, seeks the relief that impugned transfer order, dated 01.09.2020 (Annexure P-I) and consequent relieving order, dated 02.09.2020 (Annexure P-II) be quashed and set-aside in the interest of justice.

(3.) Per contra, the respondents-Board, by filing an elaborative and detailed reply, resisted and refuted the contentions raised by the petitioner. As per the respondents, transfer is an 'incidence of service' and to accommodate an employee, considering the exigencies of service and public interest, is within the domain of employer/competent authority. It is further contended that the petitioner served in the office of Superintending Engineer (Interstate), HPSEB Ltd., Totu, Shimla-11 on and w.e.f. 29.11.2016 to 16.10.2018, i.e., within the precincts of Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Thereafter, he was adjusted in Electrical Section, HPSEB Ltd. New Shimla, that is also within the precincts of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and till the issuance of impugned transfer order (Annexure P-I), dated 01.09.2020, the petitioner is serving there. As per the respondents, the area, where the petitioner was posted prior to issuance of impugned transfer order (Annexure P-I), is an important area, where peak load demand goes upto 7MVA and the area is suffering due to the poor working of the petitioner, as he is not even performing basic functions of Junior Engineer. The petitioner has no control over operational/technical staff and he even did not respond when main 11KV feeders were down. Thus, the competent authority found him unfit to remain posted in front office of the respondents. It is averred that in view of the aforesaid dereliction in duty, competent authority recommended to transfer the petitioner and provide a suitable substitute to the general public/consumers. Since no improvement was observed in the working of the petitioner, so, after due deliberations, he was transferred and consequently relieved. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner cannot be given color of arbitrariness and the same is within the confines of law. The petitioner is transferred within Shimla and not outside Shimla, even then, he, instead of joining his duties at the transferred station, indulged in litigation, so the public work is eventually suffering. As per the respondents, indeed, there is ban on transfers, however, transfer and posting in the rarest of the rare cases, i.e., only on extreme medical grounds or on administrative exigencies is permitted. The reports submitted before the Supervisory authorities against the petitioner, which eventually formed basis for his transfer, upon consideration by the Management Board fall within the category of administrative exigencies and in public interest, as the working of the petitioner became prejudicial to general public/consumers. Lastly, it is prayed that the extant writ petition be dismissed, as the petitioner has been transferred in the foregoing background, considering administrative exigencies and in public interest after approval of the competent authority with no tinges of malafide, arbitrariness and the same is not in violation of statutory provisions.