The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper justification for premature transfer before completion of the three years normal tenure in a particular station and the approval of the Chief Minister, and the prohibition of transfers influenced by the desire of politicians.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This writ application is directed against an order dated 7.8.2004 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Nalbari to Bongaigaon and the respondent No. 5 has been transferred from Mangaldoi to Nalbari to the replacement of the petitioner.

2. By a Notification dated 14.7.2002, the petitioner, a member of the Assam Civil Service and whose services was placed at the disposal of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department was appointed as Project Director and posted at the DRDA, Nalbari to the replacement of the respondent No. 5. Prior to that, the respondent No. 5 had functioned as the Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari for the period from 16.9.1997 to 24.7.2002.

3. Pursuant to the said Notification dated 14.7.2002, the petitioner joined as Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari and according to him he could detect many irregularities including financial irregularities committed by the respondent No. 5 during his tenure as the Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari. Various irregularities purportedly committed by the respondent No. 5 had been highlighted in the writ petition and the purported steps undertaken by the petitioner to streamline the functioning of the DRDA, Nalbari.

4. According to the petitioner, various politicians of the area including the MLAs of the various Legislative Constituencies in the district of Nalbari directed the petitioner to act in a particular manner as desired by them in the matter of implementation of the various developmental activities. According to him, refusal to act as per the dictates of the said politicians attracted their wrath against the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed some of the recommendations made by the members of the Legislative Assembly as Annexure 7-series.

5. By the impugned Notification dated 7.8.2004, the position which stood at the time of transfer of the petitioner to Nalbari by the aforesaid Notification dated 14.7.2002 has been revived by posting the respondent No. 5 there and transferring the petitioner from Nalbari to Bongaigaon. It is the case of the petitioner that his defiance to act according to the dictates of the politicians led to the issuance of the impugned order dated 7.8.2004. Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 against whom serious allegations have been levelled could not have been transferred to Nalbari to the replacement of the petitioner who undertook the task of the smooth implementation of various projects. Another ground urged by the petitioner is that he is yet to complete the normal tenure of three (3) years at Nalbari as emphasised under Office Memorandums dated 4.2.2002 and 22.5.2002 and that he could not have been transferred from Nalbari even before completion of the normal tenure of three (3) years without the approval of the Chief Minister.

6. The official-respondents as well as the private-respondent have filed their affidavits denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent No. 5 that the allegations made against him are all untrue and that no enquiry is pending against him. As per the affidavit filed by the official-respondents, although there is no categorical denial of the involvement of the respondent No. 5 on the irregularities pointed out by the petitioner, their stand in the affidavit is that no decision has yet been taken for taking any action in this regard.

7. Mr. A.C. Barbora, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. U.K. Nair submits in tune with the averments made in the writ petition. He submitted that the mala fide exercise of power is writ large on the face of it towards issuance of the impugned order inasmuch as against the good functioning of the petitioner at Nalbari, the same very respondent No. 5 who was earlier transferred from Nalbari on the face of serious allegations against him is once again sought to be brought to Nalbari to the replacement of the petitioner. Referring to the various recommendations made by the members of the L