IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.5079 of 2010
1. KAMENDRA KUMAR 'KAMESH' S/O GOPAL SHARAN SINGH R/O VILL.-
CHHATA, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTT.- PATNA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS BLOCK
EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, KADWA, DISTT.- KATIHAR
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR
5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR
-----------
4/ 27/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of
his transfer dated 19.3.2010 from Katihar to Gaya.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that from the recitals in the impugned order it is
apparent that the transfer was in the form of
punishment. There had been no proceedings indicting
him and holding him guilty after enquiry. He has been
condemned unheard and visited with a punishment.
Learned counsel for the State rightly
points out that the transfer was considered
conducive to good administration in an otherwise
vitiated office atmosphere. The law stands
explained in (2004) 4 SCC 245 (UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS Versus JANARDHAN DEBANATH AND
-2-
ANOTHER) that if the transfer is considered expedient
in the interest of good administration in a vitiated
officer atmosphere that does not operate to the
prejudice of the employee as he cannot be visited with
any adverse consequences in service career unless
and until a proper proceeding is held in accordance
with law to pronounce him guilty. This was
completely different from the limited consideration of
the alleged incident leading the administrator to
opine that it was both in the interest of the person
concerned and good administration to avoid a vitiated
office atmosphere to transfer a person.
The petitioner has remained stationed at
Katihar on his own showing since 2004 till the
present order of transfer. That is an aspect which also
cannot be lost sight of.
This Court holds that the order dated
19.3.2010, insofar as it refers to any conduct of the
petitioner cannot be held to cast any aspersion or to
ascribe him a guilt of misbehaviour or otherwise
which are matters to be proved in a proper proceeding
after due liberty to him. The impugned order is
therefore read down as one simply issued in the
interest of administration to maintain a unvitiated
atmosphere in the office both in the interest of the
-3-
petitioner and others in the office.
With the aforesaid observations the writ
application is dismissed.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)