Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Ms. P. Pangu, learned junior Government advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L. Norbu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6.

3. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged his transfer vide Order No. PERS-27/2015 dated 2.5.2018. By the said order, the petitioner who is an APCS (Admn. Grade) and posted as Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District Ziro, was transferred, directing him to report to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, for further posting. By the same order, the respondent No. 6, namely, Shri Chukhu Takar, APCS (Admn. Grade) serving as ADC, Balijan was transferred and posted in place of the petitioner as DC, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro. The said transfer order contained a direction that the respondent No. 6 shall move first while the petitioner shall stand relieved from the post of DC, Ziro with effect from the afternoon of 3rd May, 2018.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially when the writ petition was filed, he was handicapped of not having the relevant documents. He has submitted that during his tenure, a process for acquisition of land for the purpose of upgrading the existing single lane road from Joram to Koloriang (20 km to 50 km) to two lane road was initiated and several beneficiaries/land owners were identified. Thereafter, on the identification of the beneficiaries, a list was prepared and was sent to the Government for approval. In course of time, a sum of Rs. 45,12,21,892 was received in 2 instalments to be disbursed to the beneficiaries by the DC, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro.

5. It is submitted that the respondent No. 5, namely, Shri Likha Saaya, MLA of 16-Yachuli Assembly Constituency started exerting undue pressure upon the petitioner in connection with the disbursement of compensation amount. It is submitted that as the petitioner did not succumb to the undue pressure, he had directed his subordinate officers to go ahead with the scheduled programme of disbursement process of compensation to the various beneficiaries. After issuance of such direction on 28.4.2018, the respondent No. 5, moved an U.O. Note for transferring out the petitioner and to bring the respondent No. 6 to his post on extraneous consideration.

6. Referring to the documents available on record, it is submitted that the petitioner has, later on, obtained documents which goes to show that the concerned officers were moved over-night and the transfer order was prepared on 2.5.2018, directing the petitioner to be moved out and stand relieved in the afternoon of 3.5.2018, which was made on the basis of the said U.O Note dated 30.4.2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is aware that transferability is an incidence of service and, therefore, he has categorically stated that he is not challenging that the petitioner should not be transferred. The grievance agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner is in the midst of disbursement of compensation to the beneficiaries, as such, the action initiated during his tenure is required to be brought to a close in his presence so as to bring the entire matter to a logical conclusion.

7. It is submitted that in the present case the transfer order was made in a hurried manner and the way in which the transfer has taken place, it imputes unwritten allegation of stigma against the petitioner which will affect his future career.

8. It is further submitted that the entire transfer episode is being done at the behest of respondent No. 5, who is interested to interfere with the process of disbursement of land acquisition compensat