JUDGMENT
R. A. Sharma, J.
1. Petitioner, who is an Assistant Registrar. Co-operative
Societies, has filed this writ petition challenging the order, dated 15.6.1997 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby his transfer to Mathura was cancelled. This Court on 25.6.1997 granted time to the respondents to file counter-affidavit and passed interim order staying the operation of the impugned order. A counter-affidavit of Sri S. Singh, respondent No. 5, has been filed and the petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. No counter-affidavit has been filed by other respondents.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. By order dated 19.5.1997, the petitioner was transferred from Nainital to Agra. On 30.5.1997 he joined at Agra. On 31.5.1997 he was transferred from Agra to Nainital. He complied with the said order and joined at Nainital. However, on 9.6.1997 he was transferred from Nainttal to Mathura. Pursuant to the said order, he joined at Mathura. Subsequently vide impugned order dated 15.6.1997 his transfer to Mathura has been cancelled. Another order dated 24.6.1997 has been passed transferring the petitioner to Mahamaya Nagar. The said order dated 24.6.1997 has also been challenged by the petitioner by means of an application for amendment of the writ petition, which we have allowed by order passed on the said application.
4. Within a period of about one month, the petitioner has been transferred four times to four different places. Frequent transfers of a Government servant from one place to another within a short span of period amounts to abuse of power by the Government excepting in exceptional cases where the public interest warrants such transfers. No such case has been made out by the respondents. The Government has not even bothered to file counter-affidavit disclosing the reasons for passing frequent transfer orders. Neither the Government policy nor the law permit exercise of power of transfer in such a manner.
5. Sri H. R. Mishra learned standing counsel and Sri C. P. Ghildiyal learned counsel for respondent No. 5 have, however, submitted that the petitioner was at Mathura prior to his transfer to Nainital and, therefore, he should not have been Drought back to Mathura. There is no such bar in law. In any case, it is not open to the Government to pass successive transfer orders in short span of time transferring a Government servant from one place to another. After perusal of the pleadings of the parties and after hearing their learned counsel, we are of the considered view that power of transfer has been abused by the Government in the present case. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained.
6. Writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned orders dated
15.6.1997 and 24.6.1997 are quashed.
