Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—Heard Sri R.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and learned standing counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 24.10.2017 passed by the respondent No. 3 - Director (Personnel, Management & Administration), by which the petitioner, who is Junior Engineer with the Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nagam Ltd. has been transferred from Electricity Distribution Division, Hapur to the office of Chief Engineer, Saharanpur.

3. The transfer has been assailed on three grounds. First, it has been submitted that the petitioner was posted on transfer at Hapur in the year 2015 and that under the transfer policy of the respondent corporation, he should not have been transferred again before completion of his term of three years. In this regard it has been further stated that other employees, some of whom have served for more than five years at Hapur have not been transferred. Second, it has been submitted that in view of the office memo dated 23.10.2017, the petitioner being an office bearer too district Secretary of the Union, he could not have been transferred within two years of his assuming office as secretary of the said Union, except in exceptional circumstances. According to the petitioner, no such circumstance exists in his case. Last, it has been submitted that the transfer order has been made contrary to the transfer policy as approved by the Supreme Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 79 of 1997.

4. Opposing the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents has in pursuance of the earlier order passed by this Court, produced written instruction received by him. It is admitted that the petitioner was posted at Hapur in the year 2015 and that he became the Secretary of the workers union there. Therefore, under normal circumstance, he may not have been transferred outside at Hapur before completion of time period stipulated under the transfer policy relied upon by the petitioner and the office memo also relied on by the petitioner. Yet, the transfer of the petitioner became necessary in view of certain administrative constraints inasmuch as, at least on three occasions, on 13.9.2017, 21.6.2017 and 22.5.2017 office memo had to be issued to the petitioner for his acts of negligence and or conduct which amongst others resulted in disruption of electricity supply at the sub-station where he was posted. A copy of those office memo have been produced, which are retained on record.

5. He, therefore, submits that for the administrative reasons i.e. normal maintenance of continuous electricity supply and efficient work of the corporation which is the sole activity of the respondent corporation, it became necessary to transfer out the petitioner from Hapur.

6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not yet been issued any show-cause notice or charge-sheet in respect of misconduct alleged in the communication relied upon by the respondents. Alternatively, he submits these have not been mentioned as the reason for issuance of the transfer order against the petitioner. Consequently, it has been submitted that the argument advanced by the respondents cannot be accepted.

7. However, the petitioner does not dispute the issuance of the aforesaid three Office Memo. Office Memo dated 22.5.2017 refers to a specific incident wherein the power supply under the control of the petitioner had been disrupted for which the respondents appear to have formed an opinion that the petitioner neither received the consumer’s complaint over telephone nor informed his superiors nor took any effective steps to address the same. Then again in office memo dated 21.6.2017 notice has been taken of publications made in local newspapers of Hapur regarding disruption of power supply for long duration due to petiti