ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. The question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, a Junior Engineer in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board posted only about nine months ago at Adityapur Circle, Jamshedpur, has been made victim of political maneuvering and conspiracy and has been transferred from Adityapur as a measure of victimization by the impugned order of transfer dated 2.12.2004.
2. Petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer at Adityapur Circle which is an industrial area. He alleged to have started taking stern action against those consumers who were illegally consuming electricity which resulted in filing of a complaint dated 3.11.2004 by the Adityapur Small Industries Association. They, in their complaint to the Member (T & D), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, alleged that petitioner is harassing the entrepreneurs and, therefore, he should be transferred. That complaint was followed by another letter written by Jharkhand Janjagaran Vikas Party to the Chief Minister making some allegations against the Junior Engineer. Acting on the said letter and complaint the respondents-Board, without making any inquiry, issued notification dated 2.12.2004 transferring the petitioner from Adityapur circle.
3. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it is stated that he has collected huge amount of revenue from the defaulters and those who declined to make payment, their electric lines were disconnected at the instance of the petitioner and first information report was lodged against the Proprietor of M/s Arihant Industries, Industrial Area, Adityapur for theft of energy and a fine of Rs. 2,20,000/- was imposed which was deposited by the proprietor. The petitioner alleged to have reported the matter to the superior authority against other consumers including M/s Eastern Tar Pvt. Ltd and M/s Eastern Coating services Pvt. Ltd, Industrial Area, Adityapur to the effect that they are availing excess electrical load than the sanctioned load.
4. By filing additional supplementary affidavit the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that from 1998 till February, 2002 while he was posted at Electrical Supply Section, Tatisilway, Rural Ranchi Division, Ranchi, at his instance, revenue to the tune of Rs. 50,00000/- (fifty lacs) was collected and in about 10 days, 15 first information reports were lodged for theft of energy against the consumers. It has been specifically alleged that there are number of Junior Engineers who are posted in Jamshedpur, Area electricity Board for more than six years but they are continuing in one place. On the contrary, because of the action taken by the petitioner against the consumers, he has been made victim of the order of transfer.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents the affidavit of which has been sworn by the Law Officer of the Electricity Board. He has stated that in about one year the petitioner made only 21 disconnections which is far from satisfactory achievement and it is the Assistant Electrical Engineer who lodged First Information Report against the consumers and not the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner was working in the concerned section in a most arbitrary fashion and he used to give service connection to the consumers even before the date of estimate of cost and execution of agreement.
6. I have heard Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was transferred to the post of Junior Engineer in Adityapur Industrial Area only a few months back. The President of Adityapur Small Industries Association made complaint to the Member (T & D), Jharkhand State Electricity Board alleging that they are fed up with the behavior of the petitioner as his only intention is to harass the entrepreneurs for oblique motive. The Association, therefore, requested for immediate transfer of the petitioner. It appears that the Association also got a letter written by a political party to the Chief Minister for transfer of the petitioner. On the basis of these two complaints the impugned notification was issued. The petitioner was transferred from Adityapur to Medninagar, Daltonganj. The impugned order of transfer does not show that the petitioner has been transferred because of administrative reason or some exigency. Prima facie, therefore, it is clear that the order of transfer of the petitioner, was issued only because of the complaints made by the Association of Small Industries and on the basis of the political pairvi.
8. I am fully conscious of the law that a Government servant holding a transferable post is liable to be transferred from one place to another and the order of transfer should not be interfered with which is made in public interest and for administrative reason unless it is violative of any mandatory, statutory rules or malafide.
9. In the instant case, as noticed above, it has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner collected revenue and initiated conducting raids and/or lodged first information reports against the consumers. The complaint made by the Adityapur Small Industries association does not allege demand of any money by the petitioner rather the only complaint is that the petitioner is harassing the entrepreneurs for oblique motive. Although the order of transfer does not speak about the basis of transfer, whether for Administrative reason or on the ground of complaints, but the facts reveal that the transfer was made only because the petitioner started taking action against the consumers.
10. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that the transfer of the petitioner is not in public interest but it is a case of victimization of an honest officer at the behest of the aggrieved complainants who are the consumers. Petitioner’s transfer is nothing but a mala fide exercise of power to demoralize an honest officer who was efficiently discharging the duty of a public office.
11. In the case of Arvind Dattartraya Dhande v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (1997) 6 SCC 169, a similar question came before the Apex Court. In that case the appellant, an officer in Excise Department, conducted a raid against Mr. Rathod at his factory and sample was taken from the toddy for analysis. Consequently an offence was registered on the basis of the analysis report. The appellant asked for permission from the competent authorities to prosecute the licensee and also for cancellation of the license. As a counter-blast the toddy contractor lodged complaint against the appellant with the Minister and the Minister repeated the complaint to the Minister for State Excise on the basis of the contractor’s complaint. On the basis of this complaint, action was taken against the appellant and he was transferred from that place. The Apex Court observed that it is most unfortunate that the Government demoralizes the officers who discharge the duties honestly and diligently and bring to book the persons indulging in black marketing and contrabanding the liquor. This is one of the eloquent cases where such a sorry State of affairs has come to light. Their Lordship held as follow :–
“In view of the unimpeachable and eloquent testimony of the performance of the duties, it will be obvious that the transfer is not in public interest but in a case of victimization of an honest officer at the behest of the aggrieved complainants carrying on the business in liquor and toddy. Under these circumstances, as stated earlier, the transfer of the appellant is nothing but malafide exercise of power to demoralize honest officers who would efficiently discharge the duties of public office.”
12. In the instant case, as held above, the petitioner has been able to lay firm foundation warranting a finding that the impugned order of transfer was passed for oblique purpose and the same is malafide in order to punish and humiliate the petitioner. I must take judicial notice of the fact that because of in-action on the part of the officers of the Electricity Board several crores of rupees have not been realized and recovered from the defaulter consumers of the State of Jharkhand particularly from the place like Jamshedpur and Adityapur. On the contrary, for the action taken by the petitioner against the consumers, he has been victimized by the order of transfer and that too on the basis of a complaint made by the Small Industries Association. The impugned order of transfer, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.
13. This writ application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of transfer is quashed. The respondents are directed to accept the joining of the petitioner in the same place, if he has been relieved pursuant to the illegal order of transfer.