An order as contained in memo no. 1200 dated 7.9.2011 by which Deputy Com-missioner, Khunti repatriated the petitioner, an Account Officer deputed at District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Khunti to his parent department, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand is under challenge.

2. Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer/repatriation is bad on two counts. One being lack of authority on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order of transfer/repatriation of the persons deputed in District Rural Development Agency.

3. In this regard it was stated that Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India has issued guideline on District Rural Development Department administration which has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand. By referring to clause 5.2 of the said guideline, it was submitted that the Chairman for the Zila Parishad shall be the Chairman of the Governing Body of the District Rural Development Agency. Further, the executive and financial function is to be discharged by the CEO. Zila Parish ad/District Collector who shall be designated as the Chief Executive Officer or the Executive Director and it is the Deputy Development Commissioner who has been designated as CEO of Zila Parishad, Khunti which would be evident from Annexure-10 and under this situation, Deputy Commissioner, Khunti has no authority to pass the impugned order. Second ground on which the impugned order is being assailed is that the order of transfer/repatriation has been effected on putting certain allegations which are punitive in nature and. as such, the order of transfer is quite bad in view of the decision rendered in a case of Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others [(2009)2 SCC 592] holding therein that order of transfer passed in lieu of punishment being wholly illegal is liable to be set aside.

4. As against this, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that though the order does contain certain allegations of not residing in the Headquarters. unnecessary interference in the works of other causing ,adverse effect on the administration of District Rural Development Agency but in effect, the petitioner has been transferred on account of inefficiency and as such, the order of transfer/repatriation cannot be said to be bad.

5. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and Another [(2004)4 SCC 245].

6. It was further submitted that only two posts of the Account Officer have been sanctioned for District Rural Development Agency, Khunti and as against that two persons have already been posted though on contract basis and as such, continuation of the petitioner on the post of Account Officer would be in excess of the sanctioned strength and this was also the reason for effecting the transfer/repatriation of the petitioner.

7. It was further pointed out that the Parent Department of the petitioner is Bihar State Small Scale Industries Development Corporation, Bihar, Patna. From that department, he had been deputed in the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. Subsequently, he was deputed in District Rural Development Agency, Khunti but now Rural Development Department, vide its order dated 20.9.2011 has relieved the petitioner for his joining to its Parent Department. That being so, the petitioner on being repatriated to the Parent Department has no right to hold the post at District Rural Development Agency and on account of this development, the impugned order never warrants to be interfered with by this Court.

8. Learned counsel also submitted that on account of inefficiency, one can be transferred in view of the provision. of Rule 56A of the Bihar Service Code which proposition has been laid down by this Court in a case of Arjun Prasad Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Others [2009(3) JCR 237(Jhr.)] [ : 2