Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 637 (JHR)

Ranit Deo Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-05-15

M.Y.EQBAL

body2006
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order No. 70 contained in Memo No. 1752 dated 3.12.2005 (Annexure 8) by which the petitioner was removed from the charge of Anandpur, Dalbhum Division and was directed to work at Minor Forest Produce Project, Daltonganj Division and also for issuance of a writ of certiorori for quashing the office order No. 76 as contained in memo No. 1781 dated 9.12.2005 (Annexure 11) by which respondent No. 6 has been transferred to Minor Forest Produce Project, Anandpur Range, Dalbhum Division. Petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the officer order No. 84 as contained in memo No. 1821 dated 15.12.2005 (Annexure 13) by which the petitioner has been transferred/posted at Minor Forest Produce Project Garhwa I Range. 2. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Range Officer in 1991. In 2003 he was transferred from Simdega East, Ranchi Division to Anandpur Dalbhum Division by order dated 31.12.2003. Petitioner said to have been relieved on 16.1.2004 for joining at Anandpur Division and submitted his joining on 17.1.2004. Petitioner was transferred in place of on Sanjay Kumar. It is stated by the petitioner that the Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Dalbhum Division by letter dated 30.11.2005 addressed to the General Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Ranchi Circle, Ranchi reported that petitioner being the Forest Inspector has not got the royalty of the Kendu leaves deposited for the financial year 2006 due to which there are chances of loss and this action of the petitioner amounts to carelessness and dereliction of duty. In pursuance of the said letter petitioner was removed from the charge of Anandpur Range, Dalbhum Division and directed to work at Minor Forest Produce Project, Daltonganj till further orders. Petitioner immediately filed detailed representation on 5.12.2005 before the Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Dalbhum Division explaining the entire matter. The Divisional Manager. Minor Forest Produce Project re-examined the matter and by his letter dated 6.12.2005 informed the General Manager that there has been no loss of royalty due to the latches on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner immediately filed detailed representation on 5.12.2005 before the Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Dalbhum Division explaining the entire matter. The Divisional Manager. Minor Forest Produce Project re-examined the matter and by his letter dated 6.12.2005 informed the General Manager that there has been no loss of royalty due to the latches on the part of the petitioner. It is stated that in-spite of issuance of letter dated 6.12.2005 respondent No. 6 has been transferred to Minor Forest Produce Project, Anandpur in place of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, is that the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5, it is stated that the writ application has become infructuous on account of the fact that pursuant to order of transfer respondent No. 6 has already joined at Anandpur, Range at Jamshedpur. The instant transfer orders have been passed due to administrative exigency. 4. Mrs. Ritu Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel Officer Order dated 31.2.2005 by which petitioner was removed from charges and was directed to work in the Minor Forest Produce Project, Daltonganj Division was by way of punishment and stricture on the petitioner and the said office order is liable to be quashed in view of the subsequent letter whereby it was explained that there was no dereliction or carelessness on the part of the petitioner. Learned Counsel drawn my attention to the order as contained in letter dated 6.12.2005 (Annexure 10) to the writ application and submitted that Divisional Manager. Minor Forest Produce Project, Dalbhum re- examined the entire matter and informed the General Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project. Ranchi Circle that there has been no loss of royalty due to the latches on the part of the petitioner. In that circumstances, petitioner could not have been transferred. 5. So far transfer of Government servants are concerned, it is an incidence of service and therefore, order of transfer cannot be questioned by the employee unless such transfer is mala, fide or wholly without jurisdiction. In that circumstances, petitioner could not have been transferred. 5. So far transfer of Government servants are concerned, it is an incidence of service and therefore, order of transfer cannot be questioned by the employee unless such transfer is mala, fide or wholly without jurisdiction. In the instant case, as noticed above, the Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Dalbhum by his letter dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure 7) informed the General Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi Circle that petitioner has not got the royalty of the Kendu leaves for the financial year 2006 due to which there are chance that there may be some loss and his action amounts to carelessness and dereliction of duty. The same Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Dalbhum Division re-examined the matter and again informed the General Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi Circle by his letter dated 6.12.2005 (Annexure 10) that there has been no loss of Government revenue and no case of dereliction of duty is made out against the petitioner. However, the Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Dalbhum Division recommended for giving warning to the petitioner. 6. In my view therefore, there is no punishment as such inflicted upon the petitioner as the charges made against him was subsequently not found correct and it can not be said that transfer to the petitioner from Anandpur Range is by way of punishment. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by him, he has stated that he is ready to join at any transferred place but he has agitated the matter merely because he has been transferred by way of punishment, which amounts to stigma in his service career. The apprehension of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. It is, therefore, clarified that the order of transfer of the petitioner from Dalbhum Range cannot and shall not be deemed to be by way of punishment. 7. Without interfering with the order of transfer, I dispose of this writ application with an observation that the transfer of the petitioner from one place to another place shall not be treated a punishment and the same shall not in any way effect his service career.