The transfer of the petitioner was not mala fide, the Adhyaksha had delegated his powers to the Upadhyaksha, and the extension of the term of office of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha was valid.

1. This application by Umesh Prasad Sharma under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 30th November, 1974 (Annexure 5) passed by the Assistant Development Commissioner-cum-Deputy Chief Executive Officer (respondent No.3) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sissai Panchayat Samiti to Khunti Panchavat Samiti. The said order is based on order, dated the 25th of November, 1974 (Annexure 4) passed by Shri Budhrarn Bhagat, Upadhyaksha, Zila Parishad (respondent No.7). In the application, therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order contained under Annexure 5.

2. In order to appreciate the points involved in this case it will be necessary to state, briefly, the facts. The petitioner is the Head Clerk of the office of the Block Development Officer (Shri Sachidanand Prasad), Sasai, respondent No. 5; whereas Lal Arun Kumar Nath Sahdeo, respondent No. 6, is the Adhyaksha of Zila Parishad, Ranchi; Timber Orson, respondent No. 8, is the Pramukh of the Sissai Panchayat Samiti and respondent No. 7 is the Upadhyaksha. The petitioner being the Head Clerk is a ministerial officer of the non-gazetted rank of the State Government. The petitioner has further stated in paragraph 3 of this application that he is also the Adhyaksh of the Non-Gazetted Employees Federation at Sissai and he is joint-Secretary of the Non-Gazetted Employees Federation. Sub-divisional Branch, Gumla. In paragraph 4 of his application, he has stated that the petitioner being an important office-bearer of the Non-Gazetted Employees Federation at Sissai, he has been keeping a close watch over the entire Government machinery with a view to safeguard the interest of the Non-Gazetted employees, including all such officers deputed by the State Government to the Sissai Panchayat Samiti. It was also stated that the petitioner had been making reports regarding the several acts of corruption of respondent No. 5 and being satisfied with the reports, the Lokayukta. Anti-Corruption Department, and the State Government have started making enquiries against the conduct of respondent No. 5. The petitioner being in possession of some documentary evidence to substantiate the charges against respondent No. 5 was approached several times by respondent No. 5 to destroy those documentary evidence but the petitioner refused the request.

With a view to have access to these documentary evidence, respondent No. 5 entered into a conspiracy with respondent no. 8 and through him under letter no. 285, dated the 7th of November, 1974 (Annexure 1) respondent No. 8 complained to respondent No. 6 against the petitioner and levelled several charges against him. The said letter was received by respondent No. 6 who forwarded the same to respondent No. 4 with a direction to give his comments upon it after a shifting enquiry. The said letter was carried by respondent No. 5 and was given to respondent No. 4 who, at the persuation of respondent No. 5, recommended to Deputy Development Commissioner, respondent No. 2, to persuade respondent No. 6 to start departmental enquiry against the petitioner and prior to initiation of the departmental enquiry he recommended for the transfer of the petitioner. A copy of the comments of respondent No. 4 is marked as Annexure 2. When the comment of respondent No. 4 was received by respondent No. 6, the latter issued an order on the 23rd of November, 1974, that the charges against the petitioner be enquired into by the panel of officers named in his order and a true copy of the said order is enclosed as Annexure 3 to this application. The Asst. Development Commr.... of respondent No. 4, the petitioner stated was also persuaded by respondent No. 5 for the transfer of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4, therefore, managed to persuade respondent No. 7 for issuance of an order to transfer the petitioner forthwith. Respondent No. 7, thereafter, passed order contained under Annexure 4 and lastly, on its