Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1490 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-09-11

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2007
Judgment 1. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Notification No. 373 dated 6.3.2007 issued by the State Government in the Department of Rural Development Government of Bihar and communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1315 dated 6.3.2007 whereby he has been transferred from the post of Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation. Sub-Division Office, Thakurganj, on the vacant post of Assistant Engineer. N.R.E.P. The transfer order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it has been issued for malicious reasons on the recommendation of local M.L.A. respondent no. 4 as well as in contravention of the rules. The transfer order has not been passed on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee. In support of this contention petitioner has referred Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit. 2. The local M.L.A. has written a letter to the concerned Minister of Rural Development Department regarding the transfer of petitioner for the reasons that the petitioner and one Brij Kishore Mandal have remained posted at Kishanganj for more than 8-10 years. The local people are also not pleased with the activities of these two Engineers and several complaints are being made against them to the superior authority. In the letter it has also been mentioned that for administrative reasons also any officer should not remain posted at one place for such a long period as such they should be transferred. The concerned Minister on such request and considering the reasons assigned directed the department to pass transfer order as per rule on recommendation of the Establishment Committee. Thereafter the transfer order was issued on recommendation of Establishment Committee. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents where it has been stated that the petitioner was posted in R.E.O. Works Sub-Division, Thakurganj under R.E.O. Works Division, Kishanganj since 12.9.2002, and in compliance of transfer order petitioner has already been relieved for giving joining to the transferred place. The reason for passing transfer order has been mentioned to be administrative. Since the petitioner has already served for more than three years in R.E.O. Works Sub-Division, Thakurganj as such his transfer is proper and legal. The department is competent to transfer an officer who has completed three years of service at a place of posting. The transfer order being in conformity with the posting and transfer rule of the Government, employer needs no interference. The department is competent to transfer an officer who has completed three years of service at a place of posting. The transfer order being in conformity with the posting and transfer rule of the Government, employer needs no interference. In the counter affidavit it has also been stated that the District Magistrate, Kishanganj, had also recommended for petitioners transfer, as several irregularities were detected in such projects, which were completed as being conducted by the petitioner. 4. In reply to the recommendation by the District Magistrate, it has been submitted by the petitioners counsel that same District Magistrate had earlier vide letter dated 9.12.2006 had approved the works completed by the petitioner and had certified that the work done by the petitioner was satisfactory. In support of this contention counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the report of National Quality Monitor wherein the work done by the petitioner has been assessed and remarked as very good. Petitioners submission is that the transfer order has been passed for one and only reason i.e. on recommendation of the M.L.A. as such it is a punitive and malicious order and it must be quashed. 5. Counsel appearing for the State has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Upendra Kumar Sahani vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2005(1) P.L.J.R. 598 where it has been held that M.L.A. or any public representative have the right to bring to the notice of the Government the acts of omission and commission of a public servant and if the Government takes decision considering the same, the transfer cannot be said to be bad on that count. However, if such decision is taken only at the instance of the representative of people without applying mind, same may render the order bad in law. It has also been held that if the transfer order has been passed in case of a Government employee who has remained at one place for more than three years, the transfer order can be held to be bad. 6. In the present case I find that the petitioner was posted at Kishanganj for more than 8 years. It is true that several complaints were against the petitioner were brought to the notice of concerned Minister but the Minister directed to pass an order of transfer on recommentation of Establishment Committee. 6. In the present case I find that the petitioner was posted at Kishanganj for more than 8 years. It is true that several complaints were against the petitioner were brought to the notice of concerned Minister but the Minister directed to pass an order of transfer on recommentation of Establishment Committee. For administrative reason the District Magistrate had also recommended for petitioners transfer. The local M.L.A. being the representative of the people had also brought such irregularities to the notice of the Government and Government decided to transfer the petitioner. The transfer order has been passed on recommendation of the Establishment Committee for administrative reasons. Such transfer order cannot be held to be bad, illegal or mala fide. This is also an admitted fact that petitioner has remained posted at same place for more than 8 years and as per Government rule also his transfer order should have been passed. 7. I do not find any merit in this application as such it is dismissed.