Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 322
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ITANAGAR BENCH)
H.N. Sarma, J.
Tanakayatara – Appellants
Vs.
State of Arunachal Pradesh and Anr. – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 202 (AP) of 2005
Decided On: 21.04.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Tony Pertin, B. Loya and J. Tali, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: A.G.
The demoralizing effect of transferring an officer based on incorrect allegations and the employee's fundamental rights in government service.
Headnote:
Transfer - Violation of Transfer Policy - [Electricity Department] - [PWRS/E-49/95-96/VOL-II/pt, A 57-67, PWRS/E-49/95-96/VOL-II/Pt/729-37] - The court discussed the violation of transfer policy by the respondent authorities and the findings of the Deputy Commissioner absolving the petitioner from baseless allegations. The court also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v. State of Maharashtra and Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. to highlight the demoralizing effect of transferring an officer based on incorrect allegations and the employee's fundamental rights in government service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer (Electrical), was transferred from Bomdila to Kurung Kumey Division in violation of the existing transfer policy. The petitioner challenged the transfer order, citing baseless allegations against him and the findings of the Deputy Commissioner absolving him from the complaints.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order was not made in the exigency of public service but for collateral purposes, and it was passed without proper application of mind and on irrelevant grounds. The court also noted the violation of the government's own guidelines and norms in the transfer process.
Issues: Violation of transfer policy, baseless allegations against the petitioner, demoralizing effect of incorrect transfer based on allegations, and the petitioner's fundamental rights in government service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court quashed the impugned transfer orders and allowed the petitioner to continue in his post at Bomdila, emphasizing the need for legally valid grounds for any future change in his posting.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned transfer orders were quashed, allowing the petitioner to continue in his post at Bomdila.
H.N. Sarma, J.
1. Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate on behalf of all the State Respondents.
2. The Petitioner was transferred as Executive Engineer (Electrical) to Bomdila Electrical Division on 31.10.03 and pursuant to the said transfer order the Petitioner is serving in the said capacity at Bomdila till date. The Respondent authorities in violation of the existing policy of transfer, before completion of the normal tenure, transferred the Petitioner from Bomdila to Kurung Kumey Division vide order dated 04.01.05. The Petitioner challenged the said order of transfer in W.P.(C) No. 149 (AP) 2005. This Court after hearing the counsels for the parties thought it fit to send back the case to the Departmental Authorities for consideration of the representation filed by the Petitioner which was pending before them and accordingly, vide order dated 3.03.05 passed an order to that effect and the authorities were directed to dispose of the said representation within a period of two (2) weeks further mentioning that within the period of two (2) weeks, posting of the Petitioner should not be disturbed. Thereafter the authority passed an order on 11.04.05 by which the transfer order of the Petitioner posting him at Kurung Kumey was modified and he was posted at Pasighat as Executive Engineer (Planning), APEC-II. On the same day an order was also passed on the representation of the Petitioner, but the said order was issued on 12.04.05. By the said order the representation of the Petitioner was rejected inter alia on the ground that the Government had to consider the case of transfer of the Petitioner from Bomdila Division on receipt of certain complaint against the Petitioner from the people of the different areas of the District. It has also been stated that three (3) elected representatives of the Kurung Kumey district also objected the posting of Petitioner at Kurung Kumey Electrical Division and on such consideration; the authority did not find it desirable to review the transfer order of the Petitioner. On passing of the aforesaid order the facts remains that the Petitioner was transferred from Bomdila as Executive Engineer (Planning) to Pasighat. The said order had been challenged by the Petitioner in this writ petition. In the writ petition the Petitioner has annexed the finding of the investigation conducted on the allegations made against the Petitioner regarding his affairs at Bomdila as referred to above which was made by the Deputy Commissioner, Bomdila. After detailed discussion on the said allegations, the Deputy Commissioner in the concluded part of the findings held as follows:
Conclusion: The complaint letter is a maliciously fictitious one written in the fictitious and non existent names of persons, with baseless allegations without any iota of truth, fabricated by a handful of disgruntled juniors who are bent on dictating and running their political and communal whims on the administration of the Bomdila Electrical Division office by transferring out the dedicated and tough disciplined Executive Engineer. It will be a big setback, if not suicidal, for the district in terms of the power scenario solution if Mr. Tara is transferred out immaturely before his tenure and before completion of the above stated very important and top priority project he has taken up by dint of his personal initiative. It will rather be more beneficial for the government to transfer out those juniors than Mr. Tara, out of the district, who are proving impediments to the normal functions and administrations of the District Head Officer, thereby blocking the progress of the development works. Those ill-minded junior officers should be posted to such place where they will have little chance to play local and communal politics.
3. While the case was listed for motion hearing on 19.04.05, this Court felt it necessary to go through the relevant records and accordingly on
