Administrative authority has discretion to transfer employees based on exigency, notwithstanding allegations, without the need for prior inquiry into the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ.

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules against the judgment dated 28.11.2024 rendered by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 17726 of 2023, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant/original petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Siyaram Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/original petitioner and Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General No. 3 appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner would mainly assail the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that learned Single Judge has not properly considered Clause 4(iii) of policy/letter bearing Memo No. 1243 dated 08.10.2014. It is submitted that as per the said policy of the Government, in case there is charge on an employee and if the employee is disobeying the order of the authority and not discharging his duty properly, a show- cause is required to be issued to the employee and he is required to be asked to explain his case, but he cannot be transferred. It is submitted that in the present case, the respondent authority has passed the order of transfer, copy of which is placed on record at Page-67 of the compilation, because of certain allegations levelled against the present appellant/original petitioner. Learned counsel referred to the order of transfer dated 01.11.2023 in which there is a reference with regard to Letter No. 341 dated 07.10.2023 written by Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Purnea Division to Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna. Learned counsel referred to the said letter dated 07.10.2023, copy of which is placed on record at Page-157 of the compilation. After referring to the same, it has been contended that in the said letter certain allegations are levelled against the appellant/original petitioner that he has misbehaved with his superior officers and, therefore, because of the said allegation, request was made to transfer the appellant/original petitioner, and relying upon the said letter now the impugned letter dated 01.11.2023 has been issued by which the appellant/original petitioner has been transferred at a distance of more than 600 kms. from the place at which he was working. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that learned Single Judge has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and, therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge be set aside and thereby the action of the respondent authority of transferring the appellant/original petitioner from one place to another, i.e., at a distance of 600 kms. be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the present appeal. Learned Additional Advocate General would mainly refer to the reasoning recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition filed by the appellant/original petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents further submits that the appellant/original petitioner has not been transferred from one place to another because of the allegation levelled against him. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the respondent authority by which the appellant/original petitioner has been transferred. It is submitted that in public interest and due to administrative exigency the appellant/original petitioner has been transferred. Thus, when the respondent authority has taken the decision in public interest to transfer the appellant/original petitioner from one place to another, the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the said decision taken b