JUDGMENT
Udai Pratap Singh, J.
1. An order contained in Annexure-1, transferring the petitioner from Panki State Dispensary to Mohammadgunj Health Centre is being challenged.
2. The petitioner was a Dresser in the State Dispensary, Panki, in the district of Palamau Appointed in the year 1965, he served for a long period of thirteen years at Barwadih. On a representation made to the Civil Surgeon, Palamu (respondent No. 2), ho was transferred to Panki State Dispensary and assumed his duties in August, 1983. Soon after joining at Panki he picked up quarrel with the Medical Officer (respondent No. 3) and started making allegations that the Medical Officer did not visit the hospital even for an hour ; no proper medical aid was provided to the patients and the medicines were not supplied to him for proper dressing. It was alleged that this offended respondent No. 3. He, the before, sent a complaint to the Civil Surgeon of Palamau alleging misbehaviour and illtreatment of the petitioner with the patients. On proper assessment of the situation, the Civil Surgeon directed the Medical Officer to give warning to the petitioner and it was accordingly communicated to him. In one case, the petitioner was complained of taking manual work from a lady patient and on her refusal to work in his house, the Medical aid was stopped. The petitioner was asked to explain. The explanation submitted by him was forwarded to the Civil Surgeon. The Medical Officer was asked to direct the petitioner to meet the Civil Surgeon. The petitioner, accordingly, met the Civil Surgeon at Daltongunj who advised him to work peacefully under the guidance of the Medical Officer. Meanwhile, the Medical Officer proceeded on leave and the Block Medical Officer took charge of the Panki State Dispensary. The petitioner started making complaint against him as well. After sometime, a patient filed a complaint to the Civil Surgeon alleging that the petitioner refused to carry out the instruction given by the doctor and he was not properly looked after. An enquiry was made by the Civil Surgeon and the statement of the petitioner, the Doctor and the complainant was recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Panki State Dispensary to the Health Centre, Mohammadgunj, The said order contained in Annexure 1 was communicated by the Medical Officer directing the petitioner to join his transferred post.
3. In a counter-affidavit filed by the Medical Officer the allegations have been denied as false and frivolous. It was stated that the petitioner was a Dresser, There was never any complaint against the Medical Officer made by any patient. The behaviour of the petitioner was not cordial with the patients. On the complaints made by the patients relating to misbehaviour of the petitioner, the matter was reported to the Civil Surgeon and the petitioner was given warning for carelessness in discharging his duties. As stated earlier, a written complaint was received from a Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat of Mongalpur Panki Block that a lady patient was inhumanly treated by the petitioner. The petitioner, was asked to explain, but instead of submitting explanation, he made false, frivolous and wild allegations against the Medical Officer. When the Medical Officer proceeded on leave and the Block Medical Officer was incharge of the Dispensary, the petitioner started making allegations against him. In respect of a complaint made by the father of a patient complaining that the dressing as directed by the Block Medical Officer was not properly done by the petitioner on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was negligent in his duties. It was categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that on account of negligence of the petitioner, the local residents and the patients were dissatisfied. He was not co-operating With the Medical Officer. The order of transfer was, therefore, passed on administrative grounds. There was no violation of any Rules or Circular issued by the Government.
4. Annexure C to the counter-affidavit is a Circular issued by the Health Department, Government of Bihar and in accordance with the same, the petitioner could be transferred at any time. Further, the order of transfer of the petitioner was passed on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee. A copy of the proceeding of the Establishment Committee has been annexed and marked Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit. A bald assertion of mala fide in a supplementary affidavit in absence of a proper pleading of facts constituting mala fide, cannot be entertained. Similar is the casual statement that the recommendation of the Establishment Committee was made under the influence of respondent No. 2.
5. I, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of transfer in question. The transfer of a Government servant may be due to exigency of service or due to the administrative reasons. The courts cannot interfere in such matters. It is difficult for a Court of law to assess the needs of the Government when it utilised the services of its employees in different parts of the State for the interest of public administration. The respondents are the best judges as to where the service of the employees should be best utilised. The impugned order of transfer does not contravene any provision of law It has not been made with any ulterior motive or with mala fide intention. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.
6. I agree.