1
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2900/2010
Girish Kumar Paliwal
vs
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order: 26.3.2010.
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.
Mr. SP Sharma for the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has been transferred vide order dated
9.2.2010 (Annex.1) and according to the petitioner that
order has not been served upon the petitioner. It is
submitted that relieving order has also been passed and
that has not been served upon the petitioner. The
petitioner is challenging the order dated 9.2.2010 on the
ground that petitioner expose the respondent no.5 and even
lodged the FIR against the respondent no.5 as back as in
the year 2006. However, in that FIR, police submitted FR
and then petitioner submitted a protest petition.
Thereafter, the petitioner pointed out the misconduct of the
respondent no.5 to the various authorities and also sought
direction from the court to find out the progress in the
criminal case, which is sent for investigation to the police.
The petitioner also pointed out that in spite of the several
representations and in spite of the fact that even the
Commissioner of the Municipal Council itself observed that
the presence of the respondent no.5 in the Municipal
Council, Barmer will certainly influence the propose inquiry
against the respondent no.5. It is also pointed out that in
2
spite of that communication, no action has been taken
against the respondent no.5. It is also submitted that
respondent no.5 twice transferred from the Municipal
Council, but was not relieved. Now the respondent no.5 is
sought to be given the work on which the petitioner was
working in the Municipal Council, meaning thereby, the
person who has exposed the respondent no.5 will be
removed and at his place the respondent no.5 will be
installed and, therefore, it is clear case of malafides as well
as the transfer has been affected just to favour the
respondent no.5. The petitioner has placed on record
several documents and drew my attention to all the
documents to show that the respondent no.5 is very
influential person and the Director, Local Bodies is not in
position to take any action against the respondent no.5. It
is also submitted that it is a clear case of victimization of
the petitioner because of the fact that he exposed the
corruption in the Municipal Council, Barmer.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record of the case. It may be
true that petitioner might have got some reason to believe
that respondent no.5 is committing some wrong in the
Municipal Council, Barmer and that his belief may be to the
extent that the respondent no.5’s action are offences under
the penal provisions of law and he lodged FIR and this is
going on since 2006. In the year 2010, the petitioner has
3
been transferred from Municipal Council, Barmer to
Municipal Council, Pipar City. This court has no reason to
believe that in such facts and circumstances when the
matter is under investigation since 2006 before the police
and in the knowledge of the respondent-authorities then the
petitioner has been transferred just to save the respondent
no.5. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to observe that
mere lodging the complaints against the employer or
superiors or collegues itself is no shield against any transfer
if made in administrative exigency. The petitioner’s
contention is that he is being victimized because of
influence of respondent no.5 then, history shows that after
4 years of petitioner’s lodging FIR, the petitioner has been
transferred. Therefore, prima facie, it cannot be gathered
that the transfer order has any connection with the alleged
exposure by the petitioner of respondent no.5. Be it as it
may be, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order
Annex.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
that situation no-one will have courage to expose the
corrupt persons working in the department itself. The
contention of the petitioner is not well founded. It cannot be
presumed that all authorities above the petitioners are also
weak so that they cannot take any action against the
corrupt persons. However, before doing that, the higher
authorities are required to satisfy about the allegations
4
levelled by one of the employees. However, the petitioner
is now free to submit his representation alongwith copy of
this order to the concerned authorities so that the
allegations levelled against the respondent no.5 may be
examined by the highest authorities. However, it is made
clear that decision of the higher authorities depends upon
their satisfaction and not merely because of that there are
allegations levelled by some of the employees or one of the
employee against another employee and the authority,
obviously, will look into the matter after taking into account
all the surrounding circumstances to clean the
administration.
The writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed with
above observations with liberty to the petitioner to submit
his representation.
[PRAKASH TATIA], J.
cpgoyal/-