Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 708 (PAT)

Kameshwar Lall Dass v. State Of Bihar

2006-08-17

AFTAB ALAM

body2006
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Asghar Hussain, Senior Advocate representing the Bihar State Marketing Board and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5. 2. By Office order No. 418 dated 19.06.2006, a number of Market Secretaries were transferred from one place to another. The petitioner who was posted as Market Secretary at APMC, Musallahpur (Patna) was sent to Jehanabad. He was replaced at Patna by respondent No. 5 who was brought there from Arrah. Aggrieved by his transfer, the petitioner seeks to challenge the transfer order insofar as he is concerned. 3. Mr. Giri submitted that the petitioner was posted at APMC, Musallahpur on 3.9.2005 and he was shifted from there barely after ten months. He also submitted that compared to respondent No. 5, the petitioners performance was far better as reflected in the rate of revenue collection against the targeted amount. He also submitted that earlier respondent No. 5 was posted at Musallahpur on 9.6.2004. He was shifted from there in less than two months on 31.07.2004. By the impugned order of transfer, he was again being brought to Patna. Mr. Giri submitted that this Court had the occasion to examine the transfers made by the Board earlier when the matter came before it in C.W.J.C. No. 6848 of 2004 (Arvind Chandra Sinha V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.). (It needs to be made clear here that in that case neither the present petitioner nor respondent No. 5 were parties.) In that case, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Board indicating the principles on which transfers were made. It was stated in the affidavit that transfers were made normally on completion of two years of posting at a place and weightage was given to performance/ achievement in collection of revenue; employees achieving higher percentage of target were placed at bigger market committees and vis-a-versa. 4. By order dated 13.07.2004 passed in that case, the Court had directed the Board to review the transfers made by it in light of the stated principles. 5. Mr. Giri submitted that in pursuance of the Courts direction, all the transfers were reviewed and respondent No. 5 was shifted from Musallahpur to Arrah as his rate of achievement of the target did not justify his posting at Musallahpur. Mr. 5. Mr. Giri submitted that in pursuance of the Courts direction, all the transfers were reviewed and respondent No. 5 was shifted from Musallahpur to Arrah as his rate of achievement of the target did not justify his posting at Musallahpur. Mr. Giri contended that the petitioners transfer from Musallahpur was unreasonable and arbitrary and it was intended only to accommodate respondent No. 5 at Patna who was being brought here on his own request as would appear from the transfer order itself. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, the allegations made by the petitioner are denied. It is stated that the transfers were made by the Establishment Committee and the meeting of the Committee on 18.06.2006 was chaired by the Managing Director of the Board. The minutes of the meeting are annexed as Annexure-R4/B from which it appears that there were a number of serious charges against the petitioner and in order to hold a fair and impartial enquiry, it was necessary to have him shifted elsewhere. The relevant details are stated in the body of the affidavit. In course of hearing, it was admitted that during the pendency of the case, the petitioner was also given a show-cause notice on 14.01.2006. This concludes the issue so far as the petitioner is concerned. 7. But the propriety and desirability to bring back respondent No. 5 to Patna do not appear to be entirely free from doubt. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on his behalf, submitted that transfers were made having regard to the inter se seniority of the Market Secretaries. The petitioner was very senior in the cadre and, therefore, his posting at Musallahpur, Patna was quite justified. 8. It is true that transfer is essentially an administrative matter and the Superior Authorities/ Establishment Committee are the best judge as to at which place an employee would be most suitable for the organization. But it is not known whether the Establishment Committee while taking the decision to post respondent No. 5 at Musallahpur, Patna on the basis of his representation was cognizant of his previous postings. In an affidavit filed by the petitioner, the previous postings of respondent No. 5 are given as follows. SL.NO. PLACE OF POSTING TENURE REMARKS 1. Patna City 15.01.1990 2 & 1/2 yrs to 03.07.1992 2. Musallahpur(Patna) 04.07.1992 2 years to 03.07.1994 3. In an affidavit filed by the petitioner, the previous postings of respondent No. 5 are given as follows. SL.NO. PLACE OF POSTING TENURE REMARKS 1. Patna City 15.01.1990 2 & 1/2 yrs to 03.07.1992 2. Musallahpur(Patna) 04.07.1992 2 years to 03.07.1994 3. Patna City 28.12.2002 10 months to 16.10.2001 4. Musallahpur 09.06.2004 2 months to 31.07.2004 5. Sasaram August, 2004 12 months to December, 2004 6. Arrah January, 2006 6 months to June, 2006 7. Musallahpur Assumed on 28.06.2006 9 The above statement showing the previous postings of respondent No. 5 are not denied. The Court feels that it is a fit case where the Managing Director ought to review the decision with regard to the transfer of respondent No. 5 to Musallahpur in light of his previous postings. It is expected that a final order with regard to the posting of respondent No. 5 will be issued by the Managing Director of the Board within 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. 10. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations and directions.