SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Notification No. 1643 dated 30.12.06 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of In -charge Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Bokaro to the Head Quarters at Ranchi as In - charge Assistant Commissioner of Excise on administrative grounds. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the part of the order contained in Memo No. 1644 dated 30.12.06 whereby the respondent No. 3 (Chandra Mohan Shahni) has been transferred from the post of Excise Inspector, Palamau -Garhwa -Latehar to the same post at Bokaro and has also been asked to take the additional charge of Assistant Commissioner of Excise. According to the petitioner, the administrative ground assigned for his transfer is a mere camouflage and in fact he has been transferred and sent to the Head Quarters only in order to accommodate the respondent No. 3 who has also been asked to work as In -charge Assistant Commissioner of Excise in addition to his own duties. It has been submitted that the respondents have explained the administrative ground in the counter affidavit stating that the petitioner 'sservices are required at the Head Quarters as he is one of the senior officers competent to deal with the complicated cases at the Head Quarters, but the said reason has not been mentioned in the order of transfer and as such the transfer order is bad as the petitioner cannot be allowed to supplement the reason in the counter affidavit filed before this Court.

(2.) MR . M. Sohail Anwar, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. V/s. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported in in which it has been held that action is to be judged by the reasons stated while making the order and supplementary reasons in the shape of affidavits cannot be looked into. Learned Counsel further referred to and relied on another decision of the Supreme Court reported in Varadha Rao V/s. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in wherein it has been held that a transfer order per se made in the exigencies of service does not result in alteration of any of the conditions of service, express or implied, to the disadvantage of the concerned government servant. However, a transfer order tainted with mala fide and not made in public interest but made for collateral purposes, with oblique motives and in colourable exercise of power is vitiated on account of abuse of power and is open to challenge before Court being wholly illegal and void.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record, I find no element of mala fide in transferring the petitioner to the Head Quarters. The order of transfer has been issued on administrative ground and in the administrative exigency which has been explained in the counter affidavit. In my opinion, if any transfer order is Issued in view of adminstrative exigency or on the administrative ground, the detail ground of such exigency is not required to be mentioned/stated in the transfer order. The transfer is an incident and condition of service. A transfer order in normal case cannot be said to be a penal order attracting the requirements of the rules of natural justice before issuing such order. In that view, while issuing the transfer order in the administrative exigency, the authorities are not required to mention the detail of the reasons or the ground of administrative exigency in the transfer order. So far as the cases like transfer based on mala fide, oblique motive or by way of punishment are concerned, those cases are hit by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and require altogether different consideration which may attract observance and requirement of the principle of natural justice. But in the instant case, there is no required material on record to bring the impugned transfer order within the ambit of the latter category. The decisions of the Supreme Court, as reffered to and relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner, are also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In view of the discussions and reasons aforementioned, I find no merit in this writ application.