PATNA HIGH COURT
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.
Surendra Mohan Kateryar
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6047 of 1999 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 19, 2000
Transfer - Departmental Transfer - [Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Bihar] - [No specific act-section referred]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a class II officer, challenged his transfer from District Daily Development Officer, Deoghar to Manager, Milk Supply Project in Dhanbad, citing lack of approval from Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council (JAAC) and alleging mala fide intentions behind the transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer lacked administrative grounds and was made without any material support, thus rendering it mala fide in law.
Issues: The main issue was whether there were valid grounds for the petitioner's transfer, especially considering the lack of approval from JAAC and the contradictory assessments of the petitioner's work performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that even administrative actions must adhere to minimum requirements of fairness, and lack of valid reasons for transfer renders it mala fide in law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the transfer of the petitioner and another respondent as it was found to be bad in law.
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is a class II officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Bihar. His grievance is against an order of transfer dated 30.6.1999 (Annexure-8) by which petitioner who was holding the post of District Daily Development Officer, Deoghar, has been transferred to Dhanbad as Manager, Milk Supply Project and respondent No. 3, who was District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardagga has been transferred to the post held by the petitioner at Deoghar.
3. According to the petitioner, he .still continues at Deoghar because in law such a transfer within the jurisdiction of Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council (JAAC) requires approval by authorities of JAAC and in absence of such approval the implementation of Annexure-8 was stayed by the Joint Secretary of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar vide order contained in Annexure-9 dated 2.8.1999 and also by a general order dated 7.8.1999 contained in Annexure-10. According to the petitioner, the authorities of JAAC have yet not consented to the proposed transfer as is evident from a letter dated 7.12.1999 annexed as Annexure-12 to the petitioners reply to the counter-affidavit.
4. Assailing the transfer order contained in Annexure-8, it was submitted that when the petitioner had not completed even two years at Deoghar, another officer attempted to replace the petitioner at Deoghar by help of politicians as appears from Annexure-2 a buff sheet signed by the State Minister of the Department concerned on 14.12.1998. In Annexure-2, the State Minister has mentioned on 14.12.1998 that on telephone the District Magistrate (Deputy Commissioner), Deoghar had given information regarding unsatisfactory work by the petitioner, and therefore, he should be transferred and in his place one Ram Pravesh Prasad Nirala should be posted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further placed strong reliance upon Annexure-7 which contains minutes of the proceeding of Departmental Establishment Committee dealing with transfer matters of Gazetted officers like the petitioner. The said proceeding dated 17.6.1999 shows that while recommending transfer of two other officers, the case of the petitioner was considered for transfer on administrative grounds, it was noted that he has been posted on his present post at Deoghar for less than two years and allegedly it has been suggested that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has verbally described his working as unsatisfactory but letter No. 21 issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 4.1.1999 relating to progress of the project under the petitioner mentions that the progress of the project under the petitioner is remarkable and appreciable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Annexure-5 another letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar dated 21.1.1999 which also shows the work under the petitioner to be quite satisfactory. Thus, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner only few days before Annexure-8, the Establishment Committee consisting of Secretary of the Department and other high officials did not find any administrative reason for transfer of the petitioner from Deoghar but still the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order which gives no reason for such premature transfer. Hence, such transfer is bad in law as it is neither a routine transfer nor a transfer for administrative reasons. He has further suggested on the basis of certain materials on record that the Milk Supply Scheme at Dhanbad is a defunct scheme for which there has been no budgetary sanction in the last two years and there is no provision even for any office or office expenses for the said scheme at Dhanbad. The petitioner has been posted there after a gap of several years without any administrative requirement only with a view to punish him.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 supported the impugned transfer as a transfer on administrative grounds and according to h
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.