High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Indradeo Rai vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 July, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Indradeo Rai vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 July, 2011
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                       CWJC No.7203 of 2011
                  Indradeo Rai, son of late Ramawtar Rai, resident of Village -
                  Phulparasi, P.O. Singrahaiya, P S - Sahiyara, District - Sitamarhi,
                  Prabhari Pracharya (Principal Incharge), Mukhiya - Sarpanch Training
                  Institute, Darbhanga
                                                     Versus
                  1. The State of Bihar.
                  2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of
                      Bihar, Patna.
                  3. The Special Work Officer, Panchayati Raj Department,
                      Government of Bihar, Patna.
                  4. The District Panchayat Raj Padadhikari, District Panchayat Office,
                      Darbhanga.
                  5. Sri Murari Prasad Srivastava, Lecturer, Mukhiya - Sarpanch
                      Training Institute, Darbhanga, authorized to execute all works of
                      Mukhiya -Sarpanch Training Institute, Darbhanga.
                  6. Dy. Secretary, Panchayati Raj Vibhag, Bihar, Patna.
                  7. The Dy. Director, Panchayati Raj, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
                                                -----------

For the petitioner : M/S. Narayan Singh, Sr. Advocate and Birendra
Kumar Singh.

For the State : Mr. Anant Kumar Bhasker, AC to SC 2.

——

02. 20.7.2011 It is not that the circumstance for effecting transfer

of the petitioner does not exist. The Court would not like to

extensively record the materials which have been brought in

the counter affidavit on the issue, lest it may have a reflection

on any proceeding against the petitioner or cause prejudice

when the matter is dealt with independently.

Even prima facie, if what has been alleged or the

circumstances under which transfer had to be effected is true,

this Court is with the administration that permitting the

petitioner to continue on the post will surely create impediment

on a free and fair proceeding which is required to be held in the

matter.

The contention of the learned senior counsel
2

representing the petitioner that this order of transfer is a

punishment is not meted out in this case because the law does

not state that every transfer will have to be treated as a

punishment even if an employee in question is on a rampage.

There is no merit in the writ application. It is

dismissed.

If the petitioner reports to the transferred station and

joins within two weeks from today, the authorities will ensure

that the petitioner starts drawing his salary on the transferred

post in accordance with law.

rkp                                             ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)