Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 252 (JHR)

Vivekanand Chaudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2007-04-04

N.N.TIWARI

body2007
ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.11.2006 contained in Memo No. 3036 dated 8.12.2004 (Annexure-14) whereby the respondent No. 2 has rejected the petitioner's representation which had been filed against his transfer. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 1682 dated 29.6.2006 (Annexure-6) and the order contained in Letter No. 599 dated 8.7.2006 (Annexure-9). It has been stated that by the impugned Letter No. 599 dated 8.7.2006, the petitioner, who has been holding the post of Junior Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Deoghar, has been sought to be transferred to the Office of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Ichagaludih (Chakradharpur). The petitioner has challenged the said transfer order on the ground that the same is malicious and contrary to the rules, inasmuch as the petitioner was sought to be transferred within a period of ten months from the date of assuming the charge at Deoghar. The petitioner had challenged the transfer order in W.P (S) No. 4474/2006. However at that time the petitioner's representation against his transfer was pending before the Secretary of the Department and in view thereof, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.10.2006 directing the Secretary to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of the same by a speaking order. By the impugned Annexure-14 the petitioner's representation has been rejected. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner has been transferred on several imputations alleging and calling him as liar, indisciplined, destructive minded and arrogant etc. According to the respondents, the petitioner's transfer is in public interest and for the smooth and peaceful performance of the departmental works. The petitioner submitted that the said allegations are wholly frivolous and baseless, inasmuch as, the same have never been communicated to the petitioner earlier. The impugned transfer is wholly illegal and by way of punishment, on the alleged charges, however, without following the due procedure established by law and the same is unsustainable and liable to be quashed by this Court. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents supporting the impugned orders. It has been stated that the petitioner had been disturbing the departmental works and there were adverse report against him. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents supporting the impugned orders. It has been stated that the petitioner had been disturbing the departmental works and there were adverse report against him. Complaints had been made by the Assistant Engineer and others regarding his unbecoming behaviour and on such allegations/charges the petitioner has been transferred. Nowhere in the counter affidavit there is any statement of informing the said allegation/charges to the petitioner or of giving him an opportunity to explain or hearing. 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been sought to be transferred within a short span of ten months only on the basis of the said charges. It is well settled that the transfer on any charge or by way of punishment cannot be made without giving the person any notice and opportunity of hearing. 4. I find that the petitioner has been transferred on the charges of indiscipline, arrogant behaviour and other allegation amounting to misconduct, within a short span of ten month from the date of assuming his charge at the present place. The impugned transfer is by way of punishment on the said charges. Admittedly the alleged charges were not informed to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing the said order. Even after his representation, no charge was served on him and representation has been also mechanically and casually disposed of by Annexure-14. The impugned orders thus do not conform to the requirement of fair play and principle of natural justice. The impugned transfer orders as also the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's representation (Annexure-14) are thus arbitrary, unjust and are violative of principle of natural justice and the same are not sustainable. The said impugned orders are, hereby, quashed. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Petition allowed. (2007)DMC 640, 2007(3) JCR 224 (Jhr) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH, J Nand Kishore Jaiswal and Ors. – Appellants Versus State of Jharkhand and Anr. – Respondent Decided On : 20.04.2007 ORDER D.P. Singh, J. 1. Heard both the sides at length. 2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners, in laws of the complainant-informant Suchita Jaiswal admittedly married with Nand Kishore Jaiswal in June 2001. The dispute between the parties arose on question of some demands made by the petitioners, side. – Respondent Decided On : 20.04.2007 ORDER D.P. Singh, J. 1. Heard both the sides at length. 2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners, in laws of the complainant-informant Suchita Jaiswal admittedly married with Nand Kishore Jaiswal in June 2001. The dispute between the parties arose on question of some demands made by the petitioners, side. According to leaned counsel for the petitioners all the allegations were false because Suchita did not like to live with them for which a matrimonial case was filed in Madhepura on 16.4.2004, thereafter present complaint was filed on 17.6.2004 in Dhanbad. Therefore the present complaint petition referred to police for investigation by the learned CJM, Dhanbad should be quashed. It is also submitted that this Court has stayed the further proceeding before the Court of CJM arising of this FIR by order dated 20.5.2005. 3. According to learned Counsels efforts were made for reconciliation by different Benches and the matter was referred to Conciliator appointed by the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. However the parties could not reconcile their differences. Hence this matter is now placed for orders on the point of admission. 4. Sri P.R. Bhagat learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submitted that the averments made by the petitioners are incorrect and the petition should be dismissed at this stage. 5. I have gone through the reports of the Conciliator dated 13.4.2007 in which he finally came to conclude that the parties lack of serious efforts to compromise and not interested in restoring harmonious conjugal relationship or dissolving the marriage. In this context a written report by both sides Nand Kishore Jaiswal and Suchita Jaiswal has been annexed which is part of the record now. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to take me through averments made in complaint No. 525 of 2004 filed by one Dinesh Mandal which is beyond my jurisdiction because it is not a part of the record. Learned Counsel for the opposite party averted that in the said complaint case only an information petition was registered as Cr. Misc Case No. 525 of 2004. However after going through the material on record, I do not find that the ends of justice would be served if the investigation is denied. The matter requires though and fare investigation as the allegations are serious, made by the wife of the petitioner No. 1. Misc Case No. 525 of 2004. However after going through the material on record, I do not find that the ends of justice would be served if the investigation is denied. The matter requires though and fare investigation as the allegations are serious, made by the wife of the petitioner No. 1. 7. I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this Cr. Misc. petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.