IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 3884 of 2008
...
Yugeshwar Mochi ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. A. K. Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : - J.C. to S.C. III.
...
C.A.V. On: - 06/12/2008 Delivered On: - 12/12/2008
...
7/ 12.12.2008
Challenge in this writ application is against the Notification No.
2824 dated 29.07.2008 (Annexure 2), issued under the signature of the Deputy
Secretary in the Water Resources Department, Jharkhand whereby the petitioner
has been transferred and posted as the Chief Engineer (Current Charges) from
Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Ltd., Ranchi to the Statistics Financial and
Programme Implementation Department as the Chief Engineer (Current Charges).
2. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Irrigation Department
of the State of Bihar in December, 1972 as a Junior Engineer. He was finally
promoted to the post of the Superintending Engineer and on reorganization of the
State, he was given the Jharkhand cadre where he was posted in the Irrigation
Circle in Palamau at Daltonganj.
3. By the recommendation of the Establishment Committee and vide
a Notification No. 1336 dated 30.03.2008, his services was placed in the
Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Ltd., Ranchi as Chief Engineer (Current
Charges). Accordingly, he submitted his joining on the post on 31.03.2008.
However, by the impugned Notification, he has been
transferred as the Chief Engineer in the Statistics, Financial and Programme
Implementation Department and in his place the Respondent No. 4 has been
directed to join as the Chief Engineer (Current Charges) in the Jharkhand Police
Housing Corporation Ltd., Ranchi.
The petitioner filed a representation before the Respondent
No. 2 requesting for recalling his transfer on the ground that he had only a few
months to retire and further, that he had very recently on 31.01.2008 joined his
present place of posting.
4. Assailing the impugned Notification of the petitioner’s transfer,
Mr. A. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order is bad and is against the provisions of the Rules of Natural Justice, since it
was passed without giving any prior opportunity to the petitioner and without
there being any departmental or criminal proceedings pending against him.
Referring to the statements contained in the counter affidavit of the Respondents,
learned counsel explains that the reason for the petitioner’s transfer is an alleged
complaint received against him in his present Department. If this was so, then the
[2] [W.P. (S) No. 3884 of 2008]
petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to meet and explain the
allegation raised in the purported complaint but no such opportunity was given to
him. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the Rules relating to transfer, do
prohibit the transfer of a Government servant within six months prior to the date
of his retirement.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents-
State. Denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner, the stand taken by
the Respondents is that the services of the petitioner was placed with the
Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Ltd., Ranchi by his Parent Department i.e.
the Water Resources Department, whereafter he was posted as the Chief Engineer
(Current Charges) in the Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Ltd., Ranchi.
However, vide letter No. 790 dated 24.06.2008, received from the Corporation
requesting the Department to take back the petitioner’s services, the Departmental
Establishment Committee at its meeting dated 28th June, 2008, had recommended
for repatriation of the petitioner and for placing his services with the Institutional
Finance and Programme Implementation Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. On the
recommendation being accepted by the State Government, the impugned
Notification was issued, intimating the petitioner of his transfer. The further stand
taken by the Respondents is that the petitioner’s transfer has been done in the
interest of the Government and in the exigencies of the Government business.
Furthermore, the Headquarters of the petitioner has not changed and as such, the
petitioner cannot claim to have suffered any detriment by the impugned order of
his transfer.
6. From the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the facts which emerge are that the petitioner, who was initially appointed in the
Water Resources Department of the State Government, his services were placed
by the Department with the State Government for his posting in the Jharkhand
Police Housing Corporation Ltd., Ranchi. Subsequently, the Jharkhand Police
Housing Corporation Ltd. expressed its desire to surrender the petitioner’s
services. In such a situation, the issue of the petitioner’s transfer from his present
place of posting arose and his case was referred to the Departmental
Establishment Committee. The Committee recommended for the petitioner’s
transfer to any appropriate Department and on such recommendations being
made, the State Government had approved the recommendation and placed the
petitioner’s services in the Institutional Finance and Programme Implementation
Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. It further appears that by the same Notification,
the Respondent No. 4 was transferred to take charge of the Office of the Chief
Engineer (Current Charges) in the Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Ltd and
the Respondent No. 4 has also joined the post and as indicated, the Pay-slip of the
Respondent no. 4 has also been issued by the Office of the Accountant General to
him at his present place of posting. It further appears from the counter affidavit of
[3] [W.P. (S) No. 3884 of 2008]
the Respondents that upon the Notification of the petitioner’s transfer being
issued, the petitioner was relieved from his post in the Police Housing
Corporation. The petitioner has questioned the order of transfer on the ground that
since some complaint was received against him, he could not have been
transferred abruptly without being afforded an opportunity to submit his stand
against the complaint. This issue as raised by the petitioner is apparently
misconceived. The impugned order of transfer does not indicate that it was passed
by way of any punishment against the petitioner or that stigma is attached to the
petitioner. The petitioner’s transfer has apparently been made on the
recommendation of the Departmental Establishment Committee as required under
the Government’s Executive Rules of Business and his services are now being
placed with another Department of the State Government. Incidentally, the
Headquarters of the petitioner has been retained at Ranchi and in this view of the
matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s transfer has occasioned any detriment
to him or that the Respondents have sought to harass him in any manner.
7. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ
application. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK