Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(UK) 37

2011(1) UC 390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Hon’ble V. K. Bist, Judge

Smt. Manju Kannojia -Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 128 of 2008
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 830 of 2009
Decided On: 06.01.2011

Advocates Appeared
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

The main legal point established is that transfer on administrative ground is permissible, but it must be within the guidelines given by the State, and unless the guidelines have not been followed, there is hardly any scope of passing an interim order restraining a transfer order on administrative ground.

Headnote:
Transfer - Administrative Ground - The court held that transfer on administrative ground is permissible, but it must be within the guidelines given by the State. Unless it is shown that the guidelines have not been followed, there is hardly any scope of passing an interim order restraining a transfer order on administrative ground.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner was transferred on administrative ground, and the transfer was stayed by the court. Allegations were made against the petitioner, and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated, but the petitioner was later exonerated.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfer order had lost its force since it remained stayed, and the State Government was entitled to transfer the petitioner by issuing a fresh order.
Issues: The issue revolved around the permissibility of transfer on administrative ground and whether the guidelines for using administrative ground for effecting transfer were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless it is shown and established that the guidelines for administrative ground transfer have not been followed, there is hardly any scope of passing an interim order restraining a transfer order on administrative ground.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the State Government was entitled to transfer the petitioner by issuing a fresh order.

Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral)

1. Writ petitioner was transferred on administrative ground. When the writ petition was considered by this Court on 8th July 2008, a larger Bench of this Court was considering, whether on administrative ground a transfer can be effected? In that view of the matter, by an order dated 8th July 2008, transfer of the petitioner was stayed.

2. The State has filed an application for vacation of the said interim order. That application has been listed today alongwith the writ petition. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for consideration.

3. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Damyanti Bisht versus State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in 2008 (2) Uttaranchal Decisions, 517, has held that transfer on administrative ground is permissible. The Full Bench has also taken note of the fact that in the matter of applying administrative ground for transfer, the State has also given guidelines. Therefore, there is no unbridled power to effect transfer on administrative ground. As a consequence thereof, when an order is passed transferring a person on administrative ground, it must be deemed, unless contrary is proved, that the administrative ground has been taken recourse to within the four corners of the guidelines given by the State. There is, therefore, hardly any scope of passing an interim order restraining a transfer order on administrative ground, unless it is shown and established at the threshold that in the matter of the impugned transfer order the guidelines have not been followed.

4. As it appears from the pleadings filed in the writ petition, there were certain allegations against the writ petitioner and, accordingly, administrative ground was taken recourse to for transferring the petitioner. It further appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, on the basis of those allegations, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and upon conclusion thereof the petitioner has been exonerated. Though the complaints may be were of no substance, but there is no dispute that there were complaints of serious nature at the time when recourse was taken to transfer the petitioner on administrative ground. That itself satisfied the requirement under the guidelines for using administrative ground for effecting transfer.

6. Be that as it may, the impugned transfer order remained stayed since 8th July 2008 and, accordingly, has lost its force. We, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition with the observation that the State Government shall now be entitled to transfer the petitioner by issuing a fresh order.

7. This disposes of the writ petition.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document