JUDGMENT
Sudhir Narain, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3rd July, 1997, transferring the petitioner from Bhupauli Pump Canal to Son Yantrik Nirman Prakhand, Varanasi.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Mistri in Lift Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Predesh in the year 1966. At present he is working in the Lift Irrigation Department at Bhupauli Pump Canal, Varanasi. The petitioner was transferred to Narayan Pump Canal, Varanasi on 6th July, 1996. This order of transfer was cancelled on 13.6.97 but the said order has been recalled and the impugned order of transfer has been passed on 3rd July, 1997, transferring the petitioner to Son Yantrik Nirman Prakhand, Varanasi by the Superintending Engineer, Lift Irrigation Mandal, Varanasi, Respondent No. 1. The order of transfer indicates that Bhartiya Kisan Union raised agitation against the petitioner before the Chief Engineer, Son. They arranged picketing etc. The petitioner was transferred on 6th July, 1996. The petitioner did not obey the order and various political pressures were put to get the order of transfer cancelled. In pursuance of the political pressure the Chief Engineer, Son Irrigation Department, U.P. directed to cancel the transfer order dated 6th July, 1996. The order of transfer was cancelled on 13th June, 1997. The Chief Engineer, made inspection of Son Bhopauli Pump Canal and the public again made a complaint against the petitioner. The order of transfer indicates that keeping in view the entire circumstances, the complaints made by the public and for smooth running of the Pump Canal on administrative ground the order of transfer has been passed transferring the petitioner from Bhupauli Pump Canal to Son Yantrik Nirman Prakhand, Varanasi. Both the places are in the district of Varanasi.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contented that the order of transfer has been passed on the basis of the complaints and any transfer made on such complaints amounts to punishment. He has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Shesh Mani Tripatrhi, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1303, wherein it was held that if an officer is transferred merely because a complaint is made by a subordinate against whom action had been taken by the officer superior to him, it cannot be called a valid basis for transfer. In this case, the petitioner had taken action against his subordinate by suspending him and such subordinate staff made a complaint against him and merely on such complaint the petitioner was transferred and in that circumstances the Court held that the order of transfer was not justified. This case has no application to the facts of the present case.
4. In Dr. Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1988 (56) F.L.R. 169, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the order of transfer passed by the State Government on the report submitted by the District Magistrate. The contention of the petitioner, was that in fact, the complaint was made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the District Magistrate and on which the transfer order was passed and such transfer order should be treated as illegal, was repelled by the Division Bench holding that the District Magistrate is supposed to be custodian of law and order and unless there is malafide, the order of transfer cannot be set aside.
5. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jogendra Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 SC 2486, the employee challenged the order of transfer on the ground that his transfer was in mid-term and secondly, he was due to superannuate. The High Court had quashed the order of transfer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court taking the view that against the employee the charge sheet was submitted and to ensure that he does not interfere in the inquiry proceedings, he was transferred. There was no justification for the High Court to set aside the order of transfer with the following observations :-
“This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place of another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer.”
6. In Union of India and Ors. v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444, it was held that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it.
7. In Abani Kanta Ral v. State of Orissa and Ors., (1996) 1 UPLBEC 319, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again reiterated that transfer is an incident of service and is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or initiated by malafides or intraction of any professed norm of transfer governing the transfer.
8. Where any complaint is made against an employee before the authority concerned and such authority taking into consideration the attending circumstances and the conduct of the employee thinks it proper for smooth running of the administration that such employee should be transferred, such order of transfer will be in the administrative exigency. It is true that an employee cannot be transferred merely because a complaint has been lodged against him but if on receiving the complaint the authority concerned finds that the transfer will be in the interest of administration, the order of transfer cannot be challenged on the ground that it is either arbitrary or it has been passed by way of punishment. It is a province of the employer to consider all relevant factors on receiving a complaint. Once the order of transfer is found to be bona fide, the Courts are not to interfere with such order of transfer. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. S.S. Kaurav and Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1056, emphasised that the Courts or tribunals are not Appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers an administrative grounds. It was observed :-
“The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to intradict the working of administration system by transferring the officers at proper place. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decision shall stand unless they are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration without any factual backgrounds foundation.”
9. From the narration of the facts as mentioned above, the transfer order was passed taking into consideration the complaints against the petitioner and the agitations being raised against the petitioner for about last one year. The petitioner is working as Mistri in Lift Irrigation Canal. The public of that place is highly dissatisfied with his work. To avoid any future trouble or incident which may take place, on administrative ground such transfer order cannot be held to be malafide, arbitrary or that it has been passed by way of punishment merely on a complaint.
10. Considering, the facts and circumstances of the present case there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
