DHANESHWAR BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H. Waris, learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sohail, learned G.P.I. for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Land Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6.

(2.) The sole petitioner by this writ petition prays for an appropriate writ or order or direction for quashing the office order contained in memo No. 840, dated 17 -7 -98 (Annexure -8), whereby the petitioner's transfer from Lohardaga to Gumla has been cancelled, and respondent No. 6 has been brought back to Gumla in complete derogation of the earlier order of transfer contained in memo No. 643, dated 27 -12 -95 (Annexure -1). According to the petitioner, he was posted at Lohardaga and respondent No. 6 was posted at Gumla, By the said order dated 27 -12 -95 (Annexure -1), the petitioner and respondent No. 6 had swapped their places. In compliance of the order dated 27 -12 -95 (Annexure -1), the petitioner had promptly handed over his charge at Lohardaga, and reported in the concerned office at Gumla to take charge. Respondent No. 6 proved to be recalcitrant and refused to hand over the charge to the petitioner at Gumla and did not on his pat carry out the order marked Annexure -1. Feeling constrained by the circumstances created by respondent No. 6, the Executive Engineer at Gumla had addressed his letter to the Assistant Engineer, Gumla II, by his letter contained in memo No, 58, dated 12 -2 -96 (Annexure -3), that respondent No. 6 should hand over his charge to the petitioner latest, by 12 -12 -96, failing which respondent No. 6 shall be deemed to have been deprived of his charge on 15 -2 -96. Annexure -3 does not seem to have been carried out, possibly on account of the recalcitrant behaviour of respondent No. 6. On the heels of it came the order contained in memo No. 964, dated 19 -12 -96 (Annexure -4), of the Sub -divisional Officer, Gumla, stating that refusal on the part of respondent No. 6 to hand over his charge to the petitioner was creating an adverse effect on the general morale of the administration and, therefore, a request had been made by the appropriate authorities that charge should be taken from respondent No. 6 by deputing a Magistrate. The order dated 19 -12 -96 (Annexure -4), was the step in that direction on the part of the Sub -divisional Officer, Gumla. Accordingly, charge was taken from respondent No. 6 On 29 -1 -97, and the petitioner continued to function at Gumla till the impugned order dated 17 -7 -98 (Annexure -5), was passed. As stated above, the aforesaid order of transfer dated 27 -12 -95 (Annexure -1) has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 17 -7 -98 (Annexure -5) and the petitioner and respondent No. 6 have re - swapped their places.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that his Interlocutory Application for stay of the impugned order (Annexure -5) was placed before this Court on 14 -10 -98 and status quo was directed to be maintained.