An order of transfer cannot be effected as a mode of punishment and cannot be on stigmatic grounds.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Aniruddh Singh, learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 to 8. Affidavit of service has been filed indicating notice upon opposite party no.9 who has however not put in appearance.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 30.06.2023 and relieving dated 01.07.2023 whereby petitioner has been transferred from District Bahraich to District Gonda on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat Raj). Also under challenge are consequential orders dated 03.07.2023, report dated 29.08.2023 as well as order dated 11.09.2023 whereby petitioner's representation against transfer has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner had filed WRIT A No. -6092 of 2023 challenging transfer order which was disposed of vide order dated 21.08.2023 directing the authority concerned to consider and decide petitioner's representation by a reasoned and speaking order. It is in pursuance thereof that order dated 11.09.2023 has been passed rejecting petitioner's representation.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to fact that although impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2023 simply indicates transfer of petitioner on administrative/public interest grounds but in impugned order dated 11.09.2023, fact that petitioner has been transferred on stigmatic grounds, which indicates malice in law, has been adverted.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has indicated various portions of order dated 11.09.2023 to submit that a detailed analysis has been given by opposite parties for effecting impugned transfer order which is therefore based only on complaints and earlier enquiries held against petitioner in which he was punished. Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that since petitioner has already been punished for the alleged misconduct, present transfer order would amount to double jeopardy. It is submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that it has been passed as a measure of punishment, which is therefore in violation of Rule 15(a) of the Fundamental Rules applicable upon petitioner. It is also submitted that since impugned order is based only on the report dated 29.08.2023, the order indicates non-application of mind by authority concerned while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments:-

(1) Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 [Hon'ble the Supreme Court];

(2) Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437 [Hon'ble the Supreme Court];

(3) The Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Madras v. R. Perachi and others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 137 [Hon'ble the Supreme Court];

(4) Sabhapati Pathak v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012(30) LCD 1344 [a coordinate Bench of this Court];

(5) Dharmendra Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2013(7) ADJ 53 [a coordinate Bench of this Court]; and

(6) Dinesh Kumar Pno. 182462102 v. State of U.P. and others, WRIT -A No. -7338 of 2023 decided by this Bench on 03.11.2023.

6. Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submissions that a perusal of order dated 30.06.2023 will make it evident that the same has been passed only as a measure of administrative transfer in public interest without attaching any stigma to aforesaid transfer and it is only in pursuance of decision on petitioner's representation that order dated 11.09.2023 has been passed. As such it is submitted that transfer order cannot be said to be stigmatic in nature. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramakrishna Pal (Pradhan Sahayak) v. State of U.P. & others [Writ Petition No.17746(S/S) of 2018] decided on 29.08.2018.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that i