Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 204 (GAU)

Bina Das v. State of Assam and Ors.

2001-07-30

A.K.PATNAIK, R.S.MONGIA

body2001
R. S. Mongia, C. J.(Acting). — Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal at the behest of the appellant Smti Bina Das, may be noted. One Smti Ranju Devi was working as Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (in short ANM) in the Rural Family Welfare Centre (in short RFWC), Chenga in the district of Barpeta since 1993. By a joint transfer order dated 17.6.2000. the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1 with this appeal, 8 (eight) ANMs had been transferred from one place to another. Smti Ranju Devi (Respondent No. 6 in the writ appeal) was transferred from Chenga RHWS to Maharani Sub-Centre of Jalah Primary Health Centre. The appellant Smti Bina Das was being transferred from Bhogdia Sub-Centre under Chenga PHC to Chenga RFWC. The appellant, pursuant to the aforesaid order, joined at Chenga, thereafter, another order was issued on 14.8.2000 (Annexure 2 to this appeal). By the order dated 14.8.2000 Smti Ranju Devi was transferred from Maharani Sub Centre to Sarupeta Sub Centre. Again said Smti Ranju Devi was transferred from Sarupeta to Chenga vide order dated 22.11.2000 annexed as Annexure 5 to this appeal. With this order the appellant Smti Bina Das was transferred from Chenga to Sarupeta. This order dated 22.11.2000 was cancelled by the order dated 8.1.2001 annexed as Annexure 7 to this appeal. Resultantly, Smti Ranju Devi was to stay at Sarupeta and Smti Bina Das was to stay at Chenga. This order of cancellation of transfer order dated 8.1.2001 was made the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition by Smti Ranju Devi, This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 29.3.2001 by which the impugned order of cancellation of transfer of Smti Ranju Devi dated 8.1.2001 was quashed. It may be observed here that the present appellant was not made party in the writ petition, though by order of cancellation she had been affected. 2. No written statement as such was filed on behalf of the official respondents. It may be observed here that the present appellant was not made party in the writ petition, though by order of cancellation she had been affected. 2. No written statement as such was filed on behalf of the official respondents. However, the learned Single Judge was impressed by a letter dated 22.2.2001 written by the Under Secretary to the Govt of Assam Health & FW Department to the Director of Health Services (FW) Assam, which the learned Single Judge has quoted in his judgment and we also quote hereunder: " I am directed to sent herewith a letter dated 7.2.2001 along with its enclosures (in original) received from Smti Ranju Devi, ANM which will speak for itself. It appears that Smti Ranju Devi, ANM was working at Chenga RFWC and she has c been transferred to Maharani Sub Centre under Jalah PHC by the Additional CM & HO (FW) Barpeta. Accordingly she joined there. But thereafter she has been transferred to Sarupeta Sub Centre on 14.8.2000. Here also she has joined without any appeal. Again she has been transferred from Sarupeta to Chenga RFWC vide order dated 22.11.2000. Accordingly she joined at Chenga PHC on 29.11.2000. But subsequently this transfer order has been cancelled vide order dated 8.1.2001 without showing any reasons thereof. The above transfers have been made within 6 (six) months. It is observed that the above transfers are nothing but harassment to the incumbent and unjustified." 3. We have seen the original records. There are some further lines in this letter, which are to the following effect: "You are, however, requested to enquire into the matter and take necessary action. A report on this issue may kindly be furnished to this Department urgently." 4. According to the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner was transferred within a short span of time from Chenga to Maharani and from Maharani to Sarupeta and then back to Chenga which order was cancelled. The learned Single Judge in the concluding portion of the judgment after quashing the cancellation order of transfer observed as under : "Before parting with, it is felt necessary to mention that frequent transfer of an officer not in the interest of public service costs the State exchequer a huge amount to meet the travelling expenses. The learned Single Judge in the concluding portion of the judgment after quashing the cancellation order of transfer observed as under : "Before parting with, it is felt necessary to mention that frequent transfer of an officer not in the interest of public service costs the State exchequer a huge amount to meet the travelling expenses. In the instant case, since the transfer do not appear to have been made in public interest, the Director of Health Services is hereby directed to make an enquiry into the matter and to take appropriate action against the officer concerned responsible for issuing whimsical transfer orders. The steps may include realisation of the amount spent on travelling expenses from the pay and allowances of the officer found responsible for such arbitrary action. Petition accordingly stands disposed of." 5. It will be seen from the lines quoted above in the letter dated 22.2.2001 from the Under Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Health & FW Department to the Director of Health Services (FW), Assam as also the concluding part of the direction given by the learned Single Judge, that an enquiry was to be held in the matter. The learned State counsel has placed before us the enquiry report dated 16.5.2001 which was held by the Joint Director of Health Services (RCH/UIP), Assam. It will be apposite to reproduce the same : "On 15.5.2001,1 visited office of the Addl Chief Medical & Health Officer (FW) Barpeta and meet the concern officers and Dealing Assistant. I verified all the official records in connection with the transfer order of Smti Ranju Devi, ANM Chenga PHC. The details are as follows: 1. One written allegation from 12 Nos of Public from Chenga PHC area was received by Addl Chief Medical & Health Officer (FW) Barpeta on 2.5.2000 (serial No. 1). After receiving the above allegation SDM & HO, Chenga PHC was directed by the Additional Chief Medical & Health Officer (FW) Barpeta to enquire the matter and to submit the report within one week (SI No.2). Accordingly SDM & HO Chenga PHC conducted the enquiry and submitted his enquiry report to the Addl. CM & HO (FW) Barpetaon 26.5.2000 (Sl. No. 3).In his report he stated that most of the allegations were true. So he suggested to transfer Smti Ranju Devi from Chenga PHC. 2. Accordingly SDM & HO Chenga PHC conducted the enquiry and submitted his enquiry report to the Addl. CM & HO (FW) Barpetaon 26.5.2000 (Sl. No. 3).In his report he stated that most of the allegations were true. So he suggested to transfer Smti Ranju Devi from Chenga PHC. 2. After receiving the enquiry report Additional CM & HO (FW) Barpeta issued transfer order (SI No.4) Smti Ranju Devi ANM joined Maharani S/C under Jalah PHC on 30.6.2000 (Sl. No.5). 3. Dr. Suresh Sarma from Barpeta Civil Hospital and Smti Ranju Devi herself requested Addl. CM & HO (FW) Barpeta to transfer her from Maharani S/C to a better place as the S/C is situated in a remote area. In response to her request Addl CM & HO (FW) Barpeta transferred her to Sarupeta S/C under Nityananda PHC (SI No.6) and she joined in Sarupeta S/C on 28.8.2000 (SI No.7). 4. On 18.10.2000 Smti Ranju Devi ANM has submitted one representation to DHS (FW), Assam (SI No.8) requesting him to transfer her again to Chenga PHC from Sarupeta S/C. In response to her prayer the DHS (FW) Assam directed the Additional CM & HO (FW) Barpeta to consider her prayer (SI No.9). Accordingly he issued another transfer order (SI No. 10) and placed Smti Ranju Devi at Chenga PHC. Then she joined again at Chenga PHC on 29.11.2000 (SI No. 11). 5. After her joining at Chenga PHC several delegations from public of Chenga met Additional CM & HO (FW), Barpeta and opposed her joining at Chenga. They also reminded him that there may occur some untowards incidence at Chenga PHC so Additional CM &HO (FW) informed the matter to DHS (FW) by WT Message requesting him to suggest regarding the matter on 30.11.2000 (SI No. 12). The DHS (FW) Assam directed Joint DHS of Barpeta to enquire the matter and to submit a report within a week regarding allegation and counter allegation (Sl No. 13). Accordingly the Joint DHS Barpeta conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 20.12.2000 (SI No. 14) where he suggested to transfer Smti Ranju Devi to other place, preferably outside the District of Barpeta. The DHS FW on 6.1.2001 directed Additional CM &HO (FW) to place Smti Ranju Devi to her former place of posting at Sarupathar S/C to Chenga PHC (Sl. No. l5). The DHS FW on 6.1.2001 directed Additional CM &HO (FW) to place Smti Ranju Devi to her former place of posting at Sarupathar S/C to Chenga PHC (Sl. No. l5). The SDM & HO Chenga PHC released her from Chenga PHC on 9.1.2001 (Sl No. 16). But Smti Ranju Devi did not carry out the order until now. Conclusion: It has been observed that Addl CM & HO (FW) Barpeta issued four numbers of transfer orders to Smti Ranju Devi ANM during the period from 17.6.2000 to 8.1.2001. The orders were issued on public demands and do not appear to be whimsical." 6. It may further be observed here that a fact finding enquiry was also conducted regarding the allegations made against Smti Ranju Devi and by the enquiry report to which reference has been made in the enquiry report dated 16.5.2001 (supra) on the allegations against Smti Ranju Devi regarding her work and conduct at Chenga were found to be not baseless. 7. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court pertaining to the matter of transfer has a very limited scope and that is, if the transfer is wholly arbitrary or malafide or if there are any statutory rules, the same have been violated in ordering transfer. Learned Single Judge in this case gave much emphasis on the letter dated 22.2.2001, to which reference has been made above, and came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed by transferring her within a short span of time. However, from the record, we find that Smti Ranju Devi was working at Chenga since 1993 and she had been transferred from that place in view of some allegations by general public which were found not to be baseless. From the files we further find that the writ petitioner was always eager to go back to Chenga. From Maharani she was transferred out of that place on her request and she was posted at Sarupeta. She persisted in her efforts to go back to Chenga and initially succeeded which order was however later on cancelled. From the enquiry report dated 16.5.2001 (supra) we are of the view that it was in public interest to transfer Smti Ranju Devi from Chenga. No individual employee has a right to serve at a particular place. She persisted in her efforts to go back to Chenga and initially succeeded which order was however later on cancelled. From the enquiry report dated 16.5.2001 (supra) we are of the view that it was in public interest to transfer Smti Ranju Devi from Chenga. No individual employee has a right to serve at a particular place. Pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge the enquiry has been held, which has been reproduced above. In view of the material on record and the report dated 16.5.2001 we find that there was nothing wrong in ordering Smti Ranju Devi to continue at Sarupeta. 8. Since the appellant was not a parry in the writ petition and she is a affected person by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we have allowed this appeal to be filed by her. 9. For the forgoing reasons the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.3.2001 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2181 of 2001 is set aside. Resultantly, the order dated 8.1.2001 (Annexure 7 to this writ appeal) would remain effective.