JUDGMENT
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent on 27.6.2003 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order of direction, the adverse remarks passed y the respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu) on the joining report dtd. 25.6.2003 (Annex.7) submitted by the petitioner to the effect that “he is not suitable for DPIP. He may be posted to any other Dept. Detailed factual position is being sent separately” may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be allowed to join his duty in pursuance of transfer order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3) passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur) whereby the petitioner was transferred from the office of Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu to the office of Dist. Poverty Improvement Project, Churu.
2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:-
i) That the petitioner was initially appointed as an Accountant with effect from 26.10.1977 in the Treasury and Accounts Department and was posted in the office of Dist. Collector (Relief), Churu. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from 19.2.1988 and on various positing in several Departments at last he was posted in the office of Chief Engineer, Project Management Cell, Public Health and Engineering Department, Churu.
ii) Further case of the petitioner is that work of the petitioner was always found utmost satisfactory in the eye of the competent authorities which is evident from the appreciation letter (Annex.1) dtd. 29.4.2003 issued by the Chief Engineer, Project management Cell, Public Health and Engineer Department, Churu and the appreciation letter (Annex.2) issued by the Study Tour on Water Study and Sanitation, International Institute of Hydrolic and Environmental Engineering and IRC International Water Sanitation Centre, Delft (Netherlands).
iii) Further case of the petitioner is that vide order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and accounts, Jaipur), the petitioner along with some other official was transferred from the office of the Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu to the office of Dist. Poverty Management Project, Churu i.e. in the office of Respondent No. 3 (Dist. Project manager, Dist. Poverty Improvement Project (DPIP), Churu under the control of respondent No. 2 (Dist. Collector, Churu).
iv) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3), the petitioner was ordered to be relieved from the office of Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu vide order dtd. 24.6.2003 (Annex.4) and on the same date i.e. 24.6.2003, the charge of the post which the petitioner was holding was handed over to Shri Prem Prakash Chhakra.
v) Further case of the petitioner is that after being relieved vide Order dtd. 24.6.2003 (Annex.4), the petitioner submitted his joining report (Annex.6) on 25.6.2003 before the respondent No. 3 (Distt. Project Manager, Dist. Poverty Improvement Project, Churu, but the respondent No. 3 (Dist. Project manager, Dist. Poverty Improvement Project, Churu) refused to accept the joining report of the petitioner and directed him to submit the joining report before the respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu).
vi) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of direction of respondent No. 3 (Distt. Project manager, Distt. Poverty Improvement Project, Churu), the petitioner submitted his joining report (Annex.7) before the respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu), but the respondent No. 2 (Dist. Collector, Churu) also refused to take the petitioner on duty and made the following remarks on the joining report dtd. 25.6.2003 (Annex.7) submitted by the petitioner:
“he is not suitable for DPIP. He may be posted to any other Dept. Detailed factual position is being sent separately”
vii) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of transfer order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3) passed by the responded No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur), the petitioner was not taken on duty and rather remarks were passed on his joining report (Annex. 7) by the respondent No. 2 (Dist. Collector, Churu) which affect his service career and further more such type of remarks about suitability or non-suitability should not have been given on the joining report and therefore, the remarks passed by the respondent No. 2 (Dist. Collector, Churu) on the joining report (Annex.7) of the petitioner should be struck down and the petitioner should be allowed to join in pursuance of transfer order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3).
viii) Further case of the petitioner is that vide order dtd. 4.7.2003 (Annex.9) passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur), the petitioner who was treated under awaiting posting order was transferred to the office of Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu.
ix) Further case of the petitioner is that vide order dtd. 10.7.2003 (Annex.10) passed by the Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu, the petitioner was directed to submit his relieving order from the office where he remained under awaiting posting order and he was not taken on duty.
x) It may be stated here that these orders (Annex.9 and 10) have been placed on record by way of additional affidavit submitted by the petitioner on 14.7.2003. It may also be stated here that the orders dtd. 4.7.2003 (Annex.9) and 10.7.2003 (Annex.10) have been passed after notices of writ petition were served on the respondents and further more now through order dtd. 14.7.2003 passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts), a request was made to the Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu that the petitioner may be taken on duty.
3. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that since the petitioner was not found suitable by respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu), therefore, remarks were passed on his joining report dtd. 25.6.2003 (Annex.7) and a factual report dtd. 26.6.2003 (Annex.R/1) was also sent by respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu) to the respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur) about the non-suitability of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner was not rightly taken on duty. It has further been admitted by the respondents that the orders dtd. 4.7.2003 (Annex.9) and 10.7.2003 (Annex.10) were passed after filing of writ petition by the petitioner. Hence, writ petition should be dismissed.
4. Heard and perused the record.
5. There is no dispute on the point that through order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3) passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur) the petitioner was transferred from the office of Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu to the office of Dist. Poverty Improvement Project, Churu.
6. There is also no dispute on the point that though order dtd.24.6.2003 (Anex.4) passed by Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu, the petitioner was relieved from the office of Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu and on the same date vide order date 24.6.2003 (Annex.5), the charge of the post which the petitioner was holding was given to Prem Prakash Chhakra.
7. There is also no dispute on the point that when the petitioner was relieved from the office of Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu, he submitted joining report (Annex.6) on 25.6.2003 before respondent No. 3 (Dist. Project Manager, Dist. Poverty Improvement Project (DPIP), Churu in compliance of transfer order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts).
8. This fact can also not be in dispute that the respondent No. 3 (Dist. Project Manager, Dist. Poverty Improvement Project (DPIP), Churu did not lake the petitioner on duty, otherwise complications which had arisen later on, would have not arisen.
9. There is also no dispute on the point that thereafter when the petitioner was not taken on duty by the respondent No. 3 (Dist. Project Manager, Dist. Poverty Improvement Project (DPIP), Churu, he submitted his joining report (Annex.7) before respondent No. 2 (Distt. collector, Churn) on 25.6.2003 as directed by respondent No. 3 (Distt. Project Manager, Poverty Improvement Project (DPIP), Churu).
10. There is also no dispute on the point that the respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu) did not take the petitioner on duty, rather passed some adverse remarks against the petitioner on his joining report (Annex.7) about his suitability.
11. There is also no dispute on the point that the orders dated. 4.7.2003 (Annex.9) and 10.7.2003 (Annex. 10) were passed after the notices of writ petition were served on the respondents./ Though order dtd. 4.7.2003 (Annex.9), passed by respondent. Though order dtd.4.7.2003 (Annex.9), passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts), the petitioner was again transferred to the office of Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu from where he was transferred vide order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3) to the office of Dist. Poverty Improvement Project, Churu.
12. In may opinion the action on the part of respondent No. 2 and 3 and conduct of respondents No. 2 and 3 deserve to be condemned and the petitioner must be allowed to joint the duties in the office of Distt. Poverty Management Project, Churu as per order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3) passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts). So far as subsequent orders dtd. 4.7.2003 (Annex.9) passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts) and order dtd. 10.7.2003 (Annex.10) passed by the Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu are concerned, they have been passed after filing of writ petition and, therefore, these orders cannot be said to be valid orders and rather go to show that they were passed as if respondents were biased with the petitioner.
13. It may be stated here that after an employee is transferred from one place to another place and he goes to the place where he has been transferred and submits joining report to the concerned authority, the concerned authority has no right or business to pass adverse remarks about the suitability or non-suitability of the employee and the concerned authority is under legal obligation to allow the transferred employee to join his new assignment. If he has any grievance about the suitability or non- suitability of that person, he can write letters later on about the suitability or non-suitability of that person, but he has no business not to allow that person to join the duties. By non allowing the petitioner to joint the duties and further more passing adverse remarks on his joining report (Annex.7), the petitioner has been put to unnecessary harassment. If adverse remarks are allowed to be made on the joining report of an employee and the employee is not allowed to joint, it would create a chaos -in the realm of service of employees pertaining to transfer and there employees would be compelled to roam here and there just like beggars.
14. When the facts of the present case are examined, the action on the part of respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu) and respondent No. 3 (Distt. Project Manager, Dist. Poverty Improvement Project (DPIP), Churu, clearly reflects that they acted with bias attitude towards the petitioner. This action on the part of respondents is nothing but capricious, arbitrary, perverse and erroneous and is unsustainable in the eye of law. The respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu) passed unnecessary remarks against the petitioner on his joining report dtd. 25.6.2003 (Annex.7) and such type of remarks should not have been passed.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, all the contentions raised by the respondents are rejected and the adverse remarks passed by respondents No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu) on joining report Dtd. 25.6.2003 (Annex.7) submitted by the petitioner deserve to be quashed and set aside and a legal right has accrued to the petitioner to joint the duties in the office of respondent No. 3 (the Dist. Project Manager, Distt. Poverty Improvement Project (DPIP), Churu in compliance of order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3) passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur).
Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed and the adverse remarks passed by respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu) on the joining report dtd. 25.6.2003 (Annex.7) submitted by the petitioner are quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu) and respondent No. 3 (Distt. Project Manager, Distt. Poverty Improvement Project (DPIP), Churu are directed to allow the petitioner to join the duties in the office of Distt. Poverty Improvement Project, Churu, in compliance of order dtd. 14.6.2003 (Annex.3) passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts) and the petitioner shall be treated on duty with effect from 25.6.2003 and further the order dtd. 4.7.2003 (Annex.9) passed by respondent No. 1 (Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur) and order dtd. 10.7.2003 (Annex. 10) passed by the Chief Engineer, PMC, PHED, Churu are also quashed and set aside.
A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary for taking appropriate action against the respondent No. 2 (Distt. Collector, Churu) passed adverse remarks against the petitioner on his joining report (Annex.7) dtd. 25.6.2003.
No order as to costs.