VISHWANATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned A.C. to Advocate General, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of communication made, vide Letter No. 86 dated 27.1.2012 issued by the Chief Controller of Accounts, Finance (Audit) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna/Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-'1' to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was intimated regarding rejection of his representation against his order of transfer and it has further been prayed to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of his transfer.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner, who is a Senior Auditor, was transferred from Patna Division to Magadh Division, Gaya, vide Office Order No. 94 dated 30.6.2011 (Annexure-'1A' to the writ petition). The order of transfer was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No. 18884 of 2011. However, at the time of hearing of the petition, it was noticed that the petitioner had already been relieved vide memo dated 15.7.2011, a Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner to first join at the transferred post. Subsequently, the petitioner joined and the writ petition was finally disposed of on 25.10.2011 granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the authority concerned and the authority concerned was directed to examine and pass appropriate order within specified time. This Court also directed to consider the existing policy of the State Government on the point of posting of husband and wife at a particular place. After the disposal of the writ petition, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-'1' was passed on 27.1.2012. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The writ petition was earlier heard and allowed on 27.3.2012 by a Bench of this Court. The order impugned i.e. order dated 27.1.2012 was set aside by this Court. However, the State, against the order of the Single Bench, preferred an appeal, vide L.P.A. No. 1302 of 2012, which was finally allowed and order of Single Bench was set aside and the matter was remitted back. The L.P.A. was primarily allowed on the ground that the State was not given proper opportunity nor notice was directed to be issued to private respondent.

(3.) Subsequently, by order dated 8.8.2013, notice was directed to be issued to respondent no. 4. However, respondent no. 4 did not enter appearance in the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interlocutory application was also filed on behalf of petitioner, vide I.A. No. 4143 of 2013 with a prayer to amend relief portion in the writ petition. The relief, as sought for in the paragraph-1 in the interlocutory application, is as follows:--