SURENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is admittedly a revenue Karamchari. He has filed this writ petition for quashing the second order of - his transfer dated 8 -6 -2001 (annexure -1) passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram). The first order of transfer dated 27 -9 -2001 (annexure -6) was earlier quashed by this Court vide order dated 4 -12 -2000 as contained in annexure -7 on the ground that the impugned order of transfer dated 27 -9 -2000, although shown to have been issued for administrative reasons, was actually passed on incorrect allegations made against the petitioner by the Anchaladhikari, Dehri, respondent no. 3. It was, however, observed in annexure -7 that if upon fresh material the District Magistrate comes to a view that administrative exigency requires the petitioner to be transferred then he may consider the same and pass fresh order in accordance with law.

(2.) ALTHOUGH many allegations have been levelled by the petitioner against respondent no. 3, the Circle Officer, Dehri Anchal, Rohtas and other respondents and separate petition for contempt has also been filed for alleged dis -obedience of order of this Court dated 4 -12 -2000 (annexure -7) but the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he has again been transferred at the instance of respondent no. 3 without there being any fresh material and the District Magistrate never applied his mind to any fresh material to come to a conclusion that administrative exigency required petitioner 'stransfer when be had not completed three years in one Halka or six years in one Anchal to satisfy the norms for transfer of revenue karamcharies etc. as circulated by Government through circular dated 11 -5 -1999 contained in annexure -9. It was also submitted that the respondents violated interim order of status quo passed in this case on 6 -8 -2001 and did not allow the petitioner to work although he was not served with the transfer order and had not handed over charge. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 it was submitted that petitioner 'stransfer vide order dated 8 -6 -2001 from Anchal office Dehri to Anchal office Dinah in the district of Rohtas was made by the District Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 4 -6 -2001 and the transfer was in administrative exigencies and for administrative reasons. The counter affidavits sworn by respondent no. 3 also level allegations against the petitioner that after his earlier transfer order was quashed, he was given some other job different from that of revenue karamchari in Halka no. 3 where he was earlier working and the petitioner did not do those works properly. It has also been alleged that the report of D.C.L.R. annexed by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition was not actually issued but this fact could not be pointed out earlier because it was detected subsequent to disposal of the first writ petition by order dated 4.12.2000. Petitioner has denied the allegation and has levelled counter allegations that the relieving order as contained in annexure -H to the supplementary counter affidavit is not a genuine document and for this purpose reliance was placed upon a photo -copy of the same document, contained in annexure -C to the counter affidavit filed in the contempt matter. This discrepancy has been explained by the learned counsel for the State but there is no dispute that the relieving order was not served upon the petitioner nor he had handed over charge till 6 -8 -2001 when order of status quo was passed by this court.

(3.) PURSUANT to directions of this court learned counsel for the State has produced the original file bearing serial number XXII, file no. 5 of 2001 to place all the original materials considered by the District Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 4 -6 -2001 in which decision was taken for the transfer impugned in this writ petition besides some other transfer orders. The said file contains a photo -copy of the minutes of decisions, taken in the meeting dated 4 -6 -2001. running into six pages and ten pages of consequential orders of transfer and one sheet containing notice starting from 5 -6 -2001 to 7 -6 -2001 whereby the draft transfer orders were approved. There is no material in the said file nor anything -else was produced to show that the District Magistrate was even aware of the order of this court by which petitioner 'searlier transfer order had been quashed on the ground that respondent no. 3 had made incorrect allegations. It has not been disclosed to this Court on what materials the District Magistrate has included petitioner 'sname in the impugned order of transfer and in the facts of the case this court is of the considered view that the petitioners transfer has been done by the District Magistrate upon verbal recommendation of respondent no. 3. It is not possible to hold that such transfer of the petitioner is upon fresh materials or in administrative exigency and administrative interest. After this Court had interfered with the petitioner 'searlier transfer, the concerned respondents had to show some caution and the materials on which transfer was proposed should have been available in the record. This would have shown respect for order of this Court as well as requisite fairness in the facts and circumstances of this case. That has not been done and the decision making process leading to the impugned order of transfer relating to the petitioner is found to be unfair and not in accordance with the observations given by this court in its order dated 4 -12 -2000 (annexure -7). In view of such a finding this court finds no option but to quash the impugned order of petitioner 'stransfer contained in annexure -1. In the facts of the case petitioner will be deemed to have continued on his post of revenue karamchari in Halka no. 3, Anchal office, Dehri. If petitioner is proposed to be transferred prematurely from his present post then such transfer should be made keeping in view the observations of this Court contained in annexure -7 as well as in this order. Even for changing the duties of petitioner from Halka no. 3, the respondent no. 3 must obtain prior administrative approval of the concerned Subdivisional Officer so that there is no impression of any bias. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent but without any order as to costs.