AJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as Deputy Ranger and presently posted as such in Sadwan Block, Pragpur Beat, Dehra Division, District Kangra, H.P. He has now been ordered to be transferred to Khaniara Block, Dharamshala Range of Dharamshala Forest Division, District Kangra, H.P.

(2.) The complaint is that the petitioner has been transferred at the behest of respondent No.5, the local MLA (Industries Minister, Himachal Pradesh) as he did not succumb to the pressure of the said respondent, who wanted to hush up the matter pertaining to illicit felling in his area i.e. Sadwan Block, Dehra Range in Forest Division Dehra and to the contrary prepared a damage report against the culprits involved in illicit felling of trees and as a result thereof recovered a sum of Rs. 69,850/- and Rs. 34,185/- by way of damage and got the same deposited in Government treasury. Besides the matter was also reported to the higher authorities. As per further case of the petitioner, it is in view of he having taken action against the culprit, allegedly a contractor, who had cut trees from Government Forest while constructing the road, he has been transferred under political pressure well before the completion of his normal tenure at Sadwan Block, on the basis of a D.O. note. It is keeping in view such averments, following order came to be passed in this writ petition on 21.11.2019:-

(3.) Consequently, learned Deputy Advocate General has produced the record. The averments in the writ petition that the petitioner has been transferred on D.O. note find support from the records as it is the office of the Chief Minister who has recommended his transfer from the present place of posting by way of such note. True it is that the petitioner is also recipient of a D.O. Note at the time of his transfer and posting at Sadwan Block under Dehra Forest Division. However, at this occasion he seems to be transferred at the instance of respondent No.5 as no explanation is forthcoming in the reply to the allegations in the writ petition that the said respondent initially pressurized the petitioner to hush up the matter pertaining to illicit felling and when he had not succumbed to any such pressure and to the contrary issued a damage report and imposed penalty of Rs. 69850/- and Rs. 34,185/-, against the persons indulged in illicit felling, the said respondent by misusing his position being local MLA has managed the transfer of the petitioner on the basis of D.O. Note. Had there been no influence/pressure of respondent No.5, who happens to be a Cabinet Minister, in the transfer of the petitioner, why respondents No.1 to 4 have not stated so in the reply they filed to the writ petition. The transfer of the petitioner as such is not a routine matter but the result of colourable exercise of power.