ORDER
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is a class II officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Bihar. His grievance is against an order of transfer dated 30.6.1999 (Annexure-8) by which petitioner who was holding the post of District Daily Development Officer, Deoghar, has been transferred to Dhanbad as Manager, Milk Supply Project and respondent No. 3, who was District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardagga has been transferred to the post held by the petitioner at Deoghar.
3. According to the petitioner, he .still continues at Deoghar because in law such a transfer within the jurisdiction of Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council (JAAC) requires approval by authorities of JAAC and in absence of such approval the implementation of Annexure-8 was stayed by the Joint Secretary of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar vide order contained in Annexure-9 dated 2.8.1999 and also by a general order dated 7.8.1999 contained in Annexure-10. According to the petitioner, the authorities of JAAC have yet not consented to the proposed transfer as is evident from a letter dated 7.12.1999 annexed as Annexure-12 to the petitioner’s reply to the counter-affidavit.
4. Assailing the transfer order contained in Annexure-8, it was submitted that when the petitioner had not completed even two years at Deoghar, another officer attempted to replace the petitioner at Deoghar by help of politicians as appears from Annexure-2 a buff sheet signed by the State Minister of the Department concerned on 14.12.1998. In Annexure-2, the State Minister has mentioned on 14.12.1998 that on telephone the District Magistrate (Deputy Commissioner), Deoghar had given information regarding unsatisfactory work by the petitioner, and therefore, he should be transferred and in his place one Ram Pravesh Prasad Nirala should be posted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further placed strong reliance upon Annexure-7 which contains minutes of the proceeding of Departmental Establishment Committee dealing with transfer matters of Gazetted officers like the petitioner. The said proceeding dated 17.6.1999 shows that while recommending transfer of two other officers, the case of the petitioner was considered for transfer on administrative grounds, it was noted that he has been posted on his present post at Deoghar for less than two years and allegedly it has been suggested that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has verbally described his working as unsatisfactory but letter No. 21 issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 4.1.1999 relating to progress of the project under the petitioner mentions that the progress of the project under the petitioner is remarkable and appreciable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Annexure-5 another letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar dated 21.1.1999 which also shows the work under the petitioner to be quite satisfactory. Thus, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner only few days before Annexure-8, the Establishment Committee consisting of Secretary of the Department and other high officials did not find any administrative reason for transfer of the petitioner from Deoghar but still the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order which gives no reason for such premature transfer. Hence, such transfer is bad in law as it is neither a routine transfer nor a transfer for administrative reasons. He has further suggested on the basis of certain materials on record that the Milk Supply Scheme at Dhanbad is a defunct scheme for which there has been no budgetary sanction in the last two years and there is no provision even for any office or office expenses for the said scheme at Dhanbad. The petitioner has been posted there after a gap of several years without any administrative requirement only with a view to punish him.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 supported the impugned transfer as a transfer on administrative grounds and according to him, the Chairman of the JAAC has approved the said transfer on the request of a M.L.A. on 12.10.1999 as appears from Annexure-K. The said Annexure-contnins an endorsement on the letter of the M.L.A. himself that on the request of the M.L.A,, the posting of the petitioner in question and of respondent No. 3 is approved. No departmental letter pursuant to Annexuie-K dated 12.10.1999 has been shown to exist and to the contrary Annexure-12 dated 9.12.1999 issued by the Regional Joint Director, Dairy Development, South Bihar. Ranchi shows that JAAC has not granted its approval till 9.12.1999 because the competent committee could not be convened for the said purpose. Thus, on the basis of materials on record, it cannot be said that the impugned transfer have been approved by the JAAC. On behalf of respondent No. 3, it was further submitted that the petitioner is posted at Deoghar for more than three years. This stand of the respondent No. 3, from the materials on record appears to be misconceived and erroneous.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2,there is no denial to the facts asserted on behalf of the petitioner and no reasons have been indicated as to why the petitioner has been transferred prematurely in spite of a decision to the contrary by the competent Establishment Committee as evidenced by Annexure-7. It has simply been asserted that the transfer of the petitioner is in public interest on administrative grounds after taking approval of the Government. It has further been asserted that respondent No. 3 has already joined at Debghar.
7. The accepted position in law is that routine transfers may be made after about three years tenure and even otherwise for administrative reasons an employee may be transferred by the Government. It is not for this Court to examine the sufficiency or otherwise of administrative reasons or grounds leading to a transfer unless mala fide is alleged. Mala fide-was suggested on the basis of buff sheet of the Minister contained in Annexure-2 but that is not sufficient. At that time, the recommendation was in favour of another officer and not respondent No. 3. Further no mala fide has been alleged against any specific respondent in this case. But, the moot question raised in this writ application is whether any ground or reason exists to transfer the petitioner when only few days earlier the competent Establishment Committee had examined the matter and had found no reason for transfer of petitioner on administrative grounds. The respondents have failed to indicate any reason much less a good reason lo support the impugned transfer allegedly made in public interest. Such a situation, in my view, renders the impugned transfer mala fide in law because such action appears to have been taken on no material at all.
8. The facts of this case leave me with no option but to hold that the impugned action of the respondents is bad in law. Even an administrative action must conform to minimum requirements of fairness otherwise it may amount to arbitrariness that vitiates even administrative action. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, I find the impugned parts of Annexure-8 containing transfer of petitioner and respondent No. 3 to be bad in law and the same are hereby quashed.