Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 870 (JHR)

Sushil Kumar Dubey v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-08-24

R.K.MERATHIA

body2004
ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order of transfer dated 29.6.2004 whereby petitioner and respondent No. 6 has been ordered to remain at their post though they were transferred by the earlier order dated 16.6.2004. 3. Petitioners case is that he was transferred by order dated 16.6.2004 from Mahuatar to Chandwa. He gave his Joining to the Assistant Engineer on 18.6.2004 by Annexure-2 and thus the order of transfer dated 16.6.2004 was given effect to. Therefore, by subsequent order dated 29.6.2004, petitioner and respondent No. 6 could not be ordered to remain at their earlier place. 4. The main question is whether the order of transfer dated 16.6.2004 was given effect to or not. 5. It appears that by order dated 16.6.2004, 61 officers were, transferred. Respondent No. 6 was transferred from Chandwa to Murhu Block, Ranchi at the place of one Ajay Kumar Sharma and petitioner was transferred from Mahuatar to Chandwa at the place of respondent No. 6. On 29.6.2004, again transfer/posting order was issued regarding 41 officers. Petitioner was ordered to remain at Mahuatar and respondent No. 6 was ordered to remain at Chandwa. 6. The stand of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is that after issuance of the transfer/posting order dated 16.6.2004. it was noticed that some important schemes of development work were being executed in lull swing which may be affected adversely due to transfer of related Junior Engineers, hence in the light of advice and suggestions received from local officers, the department decided to stay the transfer of Junior Engineer namely Ajay Kumar Sharma. who was working at Marhu Block consequently, respondent No, 6, who was transferred at the place of Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma was ordered to stay back at Chandwa and consequently petitioner, who was transferred at the place of respondent No. 6 was ordered to stay back at Mahuatar, where no one was posted. In view of the aforesaid position the aforesaid transfers were stayed in the interest of work and on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee. It is further submitted that since no one was posted at Mahuatar, it was also necessary to order the petitioner to remain at Mahuatar. Petitioner has tried to make out a false case of joining. In view of the aforesaid position the aforesaid transfers were stayed in the interest of work and on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee. It is further submitted that since no one was posted at Mahuatar, it was also necessary to order the petitioner to remain at Mahuatar. Petitioner has tried to make out a false case of joining. As per the transfer orders, the concerned Controlling Officers were directed to relieve the concerned Junior Engineers and complete the other formalities. The Executive Engineer was the Controlling Authority competent to relieve the petitioner. Petitioner has not produced anything to show that he was relieved by the competent authority. In fact petitioner was not relieved from Mahuatar and he continued to work there. Petitioners joining at Chandwa was never accepted. An- nexures-2, 7 and 8 produced by petitioner in support of his joining are fabricated with the connivance of the Assistant Engineer Birendra Nath Choubey, who was the Assistant Engineer at the relevant lime. He had no authority to accept petitioners joining. The Competent Authority to relieve the petitioner and accept his joining was the Executive Engineer, Birendra Nath Choubey. who was transferred and relieved on 22.7.2004 has made anti-dated endorsements on the aforesaid letters produced by the petitioner. Birendra Nath Choubey himself has made endorsement on the measurement book along with petitioner at Mahuatar on 26.6.2004 and 14.7.2004. which clearly shows that petitioner was working at Mahuatar, under Birendra Nath Choubey. Therefore, there was no occasion for Birendra Nath Choubey to make any endorsement about petitioners joining on 18.6.2004 at Chandwa. The measurement book shows that petitioner continued to work at Mahuatar and respondent No. 6 continued to work at Chandwa at least up to 14.7.2004. It is further stated that they drew their salaries also accordingly. The Assistant Engineer, B.N. Choubey was transferred and relieved on 22.7.2004. Thereafter, a copy of the alleged letter of petitioners joining was served in the office of the present Assistant Engineer on 24.7.2004, No such earlier letter was found in the office of respondent No. 5. Thus it was submitted by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that this writ petition should be dismissed. 7. Thereafter, a copy of the alleged letter of petitioners joining was served in the office of the present Assistant Engineer on 24.7.2004, No such earlier letter was found in the office of respondent No. 5. Thus it was submitted by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that this writ petition should be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 supported the stand of the State counsel and submitted that petitioner got himself transferred to Chandwa on the basis of a letter dated 22.12.2003, issued by one MLA addressed to the concerned Minister, for posting petitioner at Chandwa. The stand of the respondent-State in this regard is that the said letter is in the records but both the transfer orders dated 16.6.2004 and 29.6.2004 were passed by the Establishment Committee taking into account the administrative exigencies. In view of the matter, it is not necessary for this Court to go into this question. 8. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons for staying transfer is contradictory. I do not find any contradiction. One of I lie reasons that no one was posted at Mahuatar was stated in the counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, filed on 22.7.2004 and this reason was reiterated by them in their supplementary counter affidavit filed on 6.8.2004. 9. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, I find that the order of transfer dated 16.6.2004 with regard to petitioner and respondent No. 6 was not given effect to. Petitioner and respondent No. 6 were not relieved from their respective places pursuant to the order of transfer dated 16.6.2004 by the Executive Engineer. who was the competent authority. They continued to work at their original places much after the impugned order of transfer was issued on 29.6.2004. 10. Before parting with this case, I direct respondent No. 3 to hold an enquiry whether petitioner in collusion with Birendra Nath Choubey has manufactured the documents of joining, for the purpose of this case or not. If he finds that petitioner and/or the said Birendra Nath Choubey are guilty, he will take appropriate action in accordance with law. 11. The order of stay dated 16.7.2004 is vacated. The respondent No. 3 is directed to see that the orders of transfer/posting issued by the department dated 29.6.2004 is complied by the petitioner and respondent No. 6. If he finds that petitioner and/or the said Birendra Nath Choubey are guilty, he will take appropriate action in accordance with law. 11. The order of stay dated 16.7.2004 is vacated. The respondent No. 3 is directed to see that the orders of transfer/posting issued by the department dated 29.6.2004 is complied by the petitioner and respondent No. 6. However, this order will not stand in the way of the department to issue orders of transfer/posting in administrative exigencies in future, in accordance with law. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.