SUMAN KUMAR SANAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 14.08.2013 issued by the District Superintendent of Education cum Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Bokaro, the petitioner has been transferred from present place of posting i.e. Upgraded Middle School, Baidyamara, Circle Chas-3 to Middle School Chatrochatti, Circle-Gomia as Assistant Teacher.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that it is stigmatic and in the nature of punishment. He further submits that on the same day a departmental proceeding has been initiated vide office order as contained in Memo No. 1802 issued by the same respondent No. 2 for certain alleged misconduct. He submits that the charge sheet has also been issued vide Memo No. 1803 dated 14.08.2013 annexed to the said office order. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order is bad in law based upon allegations and the transfer is punitive in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2013 4 JLJR 201. The petitioner has also challenged the order of relieving dated 29.08.2013, Annexure-7, which has been allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment application vide I.A. No. 7220 of 2013 vide order dated 03.10.2013.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has sought to defend the impugned order. The submissions made on behalf of the respondent-State based upon the averments made in the counter affidavit once again seek to justify the impugned order on the same ground of alleged misconduct, for which the departmental proceeding has been initiated against him, vide Annexure-5. However, learned counsel for the respondents is not able to explain as to why the order of transfer is not punitive, if it is based upon the allegation on the face of it and also in the nature of stigma upon the petitioner before the departmental proceeding has actually culminated on the finding of guilt against the petitioner.