LAWS(PAT)-2008-7-176

AIJ-PT 1716283 KAILASH BIHARI THAKUR Vs. BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION PATNA HIGH COURT

Decided On July 28, 2008
Aij -Pt 1716283 Kailash Bihari Thakur Appellant
V/S
Bihar State Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Patna High Court Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal suffers from delay of 197 days. For condonation thereof an application (I.A. No. 280 of 2008) has been made.

(2.) IN view of the facts which have been set out in paragraphs 16 to 19 of the application and that are not controverted by the respondents, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal in time. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal. I.A. No. 280 of 2008 stands disposed of. After having heard the Government Counsel and counsel for the respondents, we are satisfied that this Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be admitted and allowed. The reasons therefor, are indicated, briefly, thus: it is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 was transferred from Gaya to Supaul and respondent no. 2 was transferred from Gaya to Darbhanga by an order dated 12th February, 2007. The transfer of the respondents was purported to be made to enquire into the genuineness and legality of their initial appointment, That the respondents could be transferred from one district to another district on administrative ground/s is not in dispute. That the transfer order has been made by the competent authority is also not in dispute. That the transfer order suffers from any malice is not even found by the Single Judge. The Single Judge set aside the order of transfer by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi* and, thereafter, holding that the enquiry into the appointment of the respondents was a waste of time and energy.

(3.) WE are afraid, neither the case of Uma Devi nor any legal provision impedes the appellants from enquiring into the correctness and genuineness of the appointment of the respondents. It is altogether a different matter, if after holding such enquiry, despite the long service, the service of the respondents is terminated. That is not the case here. What has been done is that the respondents have been transferred from one district to another district for administrative reasons.