JUDGMENT AND ORDER This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Shri Rakesh Chandra Choudhury, a Grade I Officer of the Tripura Civil Service for quashing the order No.F 11 (139)-ARD/93/2851 -52 dated 19th October, 1995 whereby a 'Recordable Warning' has been issued to the petitioner for his future guidance with copy thereof to the Appointment and Services Department, Tripura, Agartala. 2. I have heard Mr. BB Deb, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. UB Saha, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Shorn of details, the facts material for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner initially joined as a Grade II Officer of the Tripura Civil Service on 25.4.1977 and as per the order dated 23.6.1981 containing in Annexure 1 he assumed the charge of Land Acquisition Officer, North Tripura, Kailashahar in the office of the District Magistrate and Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar. While serving as Land Acquisition Officer the petitioner was promoted to Grade I (Selection Grade) of the Tripura Civil Service vide notification No.F.2 (1)-GA/87 dated 15.1.1987 (Annexure 2). Thereafter District Magistrate and Collector, North Tripura District, Kailashahar by his officer order No.F.VTII-2 (2)/DMC/90/9930-33 dated 30.8.1990 declared the petitioner as Head of Office of the District Magistrate and Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar and also required him to lookafter the Establishment Section, Accounts Section and Nazarat Section in addition to his original assignment of Land Acquisition Officer (Annexure 3). 4. Pursuant to the order of appointment to Grade I (Annexure 2), the petitioner assumed the charge in the prescribed GFR Form No.33 on 19.12.1990. But thereafter by an order dated 1.1.6.1992 (Annexure 5) the petitioner was transferred and posted as Additional Commissioner, Department of Enquiries, Tripura, Agartala. By the same order Shri S. Das TCS Grade II was asked to lookafter the work of Land Acquisition Officer, North Tripura, Kailashahar temporarily vice Shri RC Choudhury and Shri Mridul Das, TCS Grade I, Joint Director, Land Records and Settlement, Tripura, Agartala was transferred and posted as Senior Deputy Collector attached to the office of the District Magistrate and Collector, Norm Tripura, Kailashahar. 5. 5. The petitioner's case is that since he was holding two duty posts viz the Land Acquisition Officer and Senior Deputy Magistrate attached to the office of the District Magistrate and Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar, the order of transfer being silent as to whom he should handover the charge of Senior . Deputy Magistrate, he approached the District Magistrate and Collector seeking clarification as to whom he should handover the charge of the Senior Deputy Magistrate. Thereupon the District Magistrate and Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar by a message dated 10.12.92 sent to the respondent No.2, namely, Chief Secretary, Government-of Tripura, Agartala required a substitute to be posted for taking over the chare of Senior Deputy Magistrate. 6. However, the petitioner on the same date i.e. on 10.12.92 handed over the charge of Land Acquisition Officer to Mr. S. Das, TCS Grade II but he could not handover the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate as till then no instruction was received by the District Magistrate and Collector from the respondent No.2 regarding handing over of the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate. 7. Thereafter by a notification No.F.2 (34)-GA/92 dated 5.5.93 as many as eight TCS Officers were transferred including one Shri PK Bhattacharjee, TCS Grade I who was posted as Senior Deputy Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar and he was asked to take over the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate from the petitioner (Annexure 8). But Shri PK Bhattacharjee did not resume his duties as per the aforesaid order. So, the District Magistrate and Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar by his message dated 21.5.93 informed respondent No. 1 regarding the retention of the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate by the petitioner. Thereafter as per the direction of respondent No. 1 which was received on 28.5.93 the District Magistrate and Collector, North Tripura, Kailashhar asked the petitioner to handover the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate to Mr. KM Das, Senior Deputy Magistrate and accordingly the petitioner handed over the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar on 29.5.93 (Annexure 11). 8. But even though the petitioner handed over the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate on 29.5.93 he could not move as the road communication was completely disrupted on account of some devastating flood. KM Das, Senior Deputy Magistrate and accordingly the petitioner handed over the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar on 29.5.93 (Annexure 11). 8. But even though the petitioner handed over the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate on 29.5.93 he could not move as the road communication was completely disrupted on account of some devastating flood. The petitioner, therefore, vide his message dated 12.6.93 (Annexure 12) informed the Commissioner of Inquiries, Agartala that he was unable to report for duty due to flood and by the same message he also sought leave informing that leave application would follow and after recession of the flood water the petitioner came to Agartala and took over the charge of Addl Commissioner, Department of Inquiries on 21.6.93 (Ammexure 13). Since the petitioner is entitled to avail of 10 days' preparatory leave he submitted an application for 11 days earned leave with effect from 9.6.93 to 19.6.93 prefixing 10 days preparatory leave with effect from 30.5.93 to 8.6.93 and resumed his duty on 21.6.93 (20.6.93 being Sunday) (Annexure 14). But on receipt of the leave application the authority asked the petitioner to modify the leave application prefixing his preparatory leave only. Accordingly the petitioner submitted an amended leave application for eleven days with effect from 30.5.93 to 9.6.93 suffixing admissible 10 days preparatory leave. 9. But before granting this leave application the Joint Secretary, ARD, Government of Tripura vide Memorandum No.F. 11 (139)-ARD/93/ 5329-30 dated 18.10.93 directed the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken against him for non compliance of the order of transfer dated 11th of June, 1992. On receipt of this memorandum the petitioner submitted his reply on 2.11.1993 explaining the reasons for non joining to his new place of posting. But even though the petitioner adequately explained the reasons he was administered a punishment, namely, 'Recordable Warning'. Moreover the contention of the petitioner is that even though warning is not a formal punishment but the manner in which it has been awarded to him amounts to a punishment as it would adversely affect the service career. The petitioner has, therefore, sought for quashing the aforesaid order awarding him punishment viz 'Recordable Warning'. 10. Moreover the contention of the petitioner is that even though warning is not a formal punishment but the manner in which it has been awarded to him amounts to a punishment as it would adversely affect the service career. The petitioner has, therefore, sought for quashing the aforesaid order awarding him punishment viz 'Recordable Warning'. 10. The respondents resisted the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit wherein it has been contended, inter alia, that the Government has power to warn any of the public servants of the State for any just cause in the public interest. It has been further contended that the warning which has been administered to the petitioner was nothing but an admonition as a measure of guidance and as such it is not a punishment and that it would also not put a stigma in the service career of the petitioner. It has been averred that by administering warning the authority simply registered its disapproval of someaction of the petitioner. It has also been stated that this warning will be placed in the service record of the petitioner for the purpose of his future guidance. The further contention of the respondents is that the flood which was alleged to have disrupted road communication was not of such a magnitude that the road communication remained disrupted for a long time as contended by the petitioner. The answering respondents have, therefore, contended that since 'Recordable Warning' is not a specified penalty the writ petition merits no consideration which should be dismissed as not maintainable. 11. Now Mr. BB Deb, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has, at the very outset, contended that since the leave application of the petitioner was granted, there was no scope for the respondents to record such an warning against the petitioner as it would also appear from the counter affidavit that this recording of warning would find place in the service book of the petitioner. Moreover, it has been argued by Mr.Dethat the very order of transfer would show that there was no direction who will take over the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate from the petitioner. The contention of Mr. Definds support from the message sent to the Chief Secretary by the District Magistrate and Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar (Annexiire 6). Moreover, it has been argued by Mr.Dethat the very order of transfer would show that there was no direction who will take over the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate from the petitioner. The contention of Mr. Definds support from the message sent to the Chief Secretary by the District Magistrate and Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar (Annexiire 6). This message shows that District Magistrate and Collector requested the Chief Secretary for posting of a substitute to take over the charge of Senior Deputy Magistrate from Shri RC Chowdhury. The order dated 5th May, 1993 (Annexure 8) shows that one Shri PK Bhattacharjee, TCS Grade I was transferred and posted as Senior Deputy Collector with specific direction to take over the charge from Shri RC Chowdhury. But this PK Bhattacharjee did not comply with the order. So, the petitioner was permitted to continue until the reliever joins (Annexure 9). The order dated 29th May, 1993 (Annexure 10) shows that by this order Mr. KM Das, Senior Deputy Collector was directed to take over the charge of Senior Magistrate from the petitioner. This order was passed on 29th May, 1993 and on this very date the petitioner also haned over the charge to Mr. KM Das (Annexure 11). All these facts taken together leave no room for doubt that there was practically no laches/disobedience on the part of the petitioner. 12. Now as regard the petitioner's inability to join, it is found from the writ petition that the petitioner could not come to Agartala as the road communication was disrupted on account of some devastating flood in Kailashahar. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the flood was not of that magnitude that the road communication remained disrupted for a long time. That may be a fact or may not be a fact but one undisputed fact that emarge out is that the earned leave application as prayed for by the petitioner was granted and that having been done I see no reason where is the scope for issuing the show cause notice (Annexure 18). 13. That may be a fact or may not be a fact but one undisputed fact that emarge out is that the earned leave application as prayed for by the petitioner was granted and that having been done I see no reason where is the scope for issuing the show cause notice (Annexure 18). 13. It has been clearly stated by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs OM No.51/5/54-Ests, dated 21.1.1995 as well as in OM No.39 21756, Ests-(A) dated 13.12.1956 that it is a matter of simple natural justice that written warning reprimands etc should not be administered or placed on an officer's confidential rolls unless the authority doing so is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason to do so. 14. From my discussion made above it is quite clear that there is no laches oh the part of the petitioner for the delay in taking over the charge of Additional Commissioner, Department of Enquiries, Tripura Agartala. The application for earned leave was granted and it means that the grounds for earned leave were appreciated by the authority. It is true that warning is an informal act of admonition administered to a Government servant normally as a measure of guidance. Such an warning as is recorded in the case of the petitioner would obviously amount to punishment as it is administered without sufficient ground for certain charges brought against him. Such a recorded warning if kept on the officer's confidential roll would surely have a bearing on the assessment of his merit or suitability for promotion to higher post. 15. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that such a recorded warning as noted out to the petitioner is uncalled for and not maintainable. The impugned order bearing No.F. 11 (139)-ARD/93/2851-52 dated 19.10.95 contained in Annexure 20 is accordingly quashed. No costs.