Back
2008 Supreme(Pat) 1027
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.M.Lodha and Kishore K.Mandal JJ.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Md.Zainuddin
Letters Patent Appeal No. 50 of 2008 ;
Decided On : JULY 28, 2008
The transfer of employees for administrative reasons does not impede the employer from enquiring into the correctness and genuineness of the appointment of the employees.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Transfer of Employees - The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the Letters Patent Appeal, holding that the transfer of employees for administrative reasons did not impede the appellants from enquiring into the correctness and genuineness of the appointment of the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal suffered from a delay of 197 days, for which an application for condonation was made. The court found that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal in time and accordingly condoned the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court heard the Government Counsel and counsel for the respondents and found that the Letters Patent Appeal deserved to be admitted and allowed. It set aside the order of the Single Judge and allowed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer of employees for administrative reasons impeded the appellants from enquiring into the correctness and genuineness of the appointment of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that neither the case of Uma Devi nor any legal provision impeded the appellants from enquiring into the correctness and genuineness of the appointment of the respondents. It emphasized that the transfer of employees for administrative reasons did not preclude such enquiry.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed, and the order of the Single Judge was set aside. The court also noted that if, upon conclusion of the enquiry, any order was passed terminating the employment of the respondents, they would be free to challenge such order in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum in accordance with the law.
1. This appeal suffers from delay of 197 days. For condonation thereof an application (I.A. No. 280 of 2008) has been made.
2. In view of the facts which have been set out in paragraphs 16 to 19 of the application and that are not controverted by the respondents, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal in time. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal. I.A. No. 280 of 2008 stands disposed of.
3. After having heard the Government Counsel and counsel for the respondents, we are satisfied that this Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be admitted and allowed. The reasons therefor, are indicated, briefly, thus: it is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 was transferred from Gaya to Supaul and respondent no. 2 was transferred from Gaya to Darbhanga by an order dated 12th February, 2007. The transfer of the respondents was purported to be made to enquire into the genuineness and legality of their initial appointment, That the respondents could be transferred from one district to another district on administrative ground/s is not in dispute. That the transfer order has been made by the competent authority is also not in dispute. That the transfer order suffers from any malice is not even found by the Single Judge. The Single Judge set aside the order of transfer by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi* and, thereafter, holding that the enquiry into the appointment of the respondents was a waste of time and energy.
4. We are afraid, neither the case of Uma Devi nor any legal provision impedes the appellants from enquiring into the correctness and genuineness of the appointment of the respondents. It is altogether a different matter, if after holding such enquiry, despite the long service, the service of the respondents is terminated. That is not the case here. What has been done is that the respondents have been transferred from one district to another district for administrative reasons.
5. Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order of the Single Judge is set aside. Needless to say that, if, upon conclusion of the enquiry, any order is passed terminating the employment of the respondents, they would be free to challenge such order in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.
