Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 939 (JHR)

Anand Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2011-10-11

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
Order ByCourt Heard the parties. 2. The writ petition of the petitioner being W.P.(S) No. 125 of 2011 was dismissed vide order dated 04.05.2011 wherein the writ petitioner challenged his transfer order on the ground that petitioner was transferred four times within five years and the petitioner had apprehension that at the transferred place he will not get the salary, as unit is closed. 3. The learned Single Judge relied upon the counter affidavit refuting the said two grounds and dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred L.P.A. challenging the said order dated 04.05.2011 and before this Bench on 12.09.2011 again he submitted that petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 25.12.2010 to the place Kharsawan in Saraikella district in the office of World Food Organization and there is no such office as that scheme itself has been closed. The appellant was made aware about the consequence of making false statement and then notice was given to the State who has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit State has again reiterated that the said programme is being run and in view of the change in circumstances, MNREGA scheme is implemented. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not join at the transferred place which was duly reported by the office of the transferred place of the petitioner. The respondent State also has submitted that petitioner's not joining the duties was first informed vide letter No. 102 dated 28th February, 2011 addressed to AP CCF, W.F.P., Ranchi and then again D.F.O., W.F.P., Chanbasa reported to Government vide office letter No. 252 dated 19th July, 2011 and office letter No. 318 dated 20th August, 2011 that appellant has not joined in the post of Range Forest Officer, W.F.P., Kharsawan nor he has taken charge of the said post till date. It is stated that said Range is situtated in Saraikella-Kharwawan district and the Range is under W.F.P. Division, Chaibasa which has been duly given extension by Government till 31st March, 2012 vide Government letter No. 24 dated 30th July, 2011. Because of non-joining of the duties by the petitioner, vide office letter No. 1159 dated 23rd March, 2011 Sri S.P.Khess has been given dual charge which includes the charge of the post for which petitioner was transferred and Sri Khess is continuing to hold the charge of the post. Because of non-joining of the duties by the petitioner, vide office letter No. 1159 dated 23rd March, 2011 Sri S.P.Khess has been given dual charge which includes the charge of the post for which petitioner was transferred and Sri Khess is continuing to hold the charge of the post. The World Food Programme Range in question is doing the work of MNREGA from the funds made available by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan and thereafter, names of two forest guards have been given who are doing the work of plantation on the road side and their salaries have been paid from non-plan head, in support of which documentary evidence has been placed. Even documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that the office is running in a rented premises for which rent is being paid. 4. The petitioner in person vehemently submitted that the office at Kharsawan under the World Food Programme has been closed and all the pleas taken by the State Government are false and have been taken only to harm the petitioner whose wife is suffering from cancer and petitioner is not getting the salary. He further submitted that for this purpose the State even went up to forging and fabricating the documents and he pointed out that the letter placed on record along with the affidavit filed on 30th August, 2011 by the State as Annexure-P, which is not legible, but from the second page of said Annexure-P it appears that this letter has been shown to have been issued on 28th February, 2011 and according to petitioner, one Budh Ram Gope became the Divisional forest Officer and this can be seen from the naked eyes. Then petitioner pointed out that another letter placed by the respondent State itself is Annexure-R, which is a hand written document, signed by Budh Ram Gope again and he is addressing this letter to the Divisional Forest officer. According to petitioner, for sending the letter said Budh Ram Gope has been shown as holding the charge of Divisional Forest Officer and in another letter he is addressing the communication to the Divisional Forest officer. According to petitioner, for sending the letter said Budh Ram Gope has been shown as holding the charge of Divisional Forest Officer and in another letter he is addressing the communication to the Divisional Forest officer. Not only this, there is one more document having the same number 102 dated 28th February, 2011, copy of which has been placed by the respondent State along with supplementary counter affidavit submitted on 21st September, 2011 wherein there is a signature of Divisional Forest Officer and according to petitioner, how there can be two letters of same number and date and, therefore, it is clear case of fabricating evidence against the writ petitioner. 5. The petitioner vehemently submitted that all has been done because he has lodged several complaints about the illegalities and irregularities being conducted by the officers in the Forest Department in the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, he has been victimized. He also submitted that he had to approach this Court 20 times and he is facing 7 departmental enquiries. It is also submitted that Budh Ram Gope has signed under pressure of the higher officers and for this he has personal knowledge. The petitioner further submitted that he is ready to join the duties at a place where he can get the salary. The petitioner also submitted that he submitted the representation before the authorities asking them to permit him to join the duties for which he has submitted the copy of letter dated 20th June, 2011 along with the supplementary affidavit filed in this Court on 24th June, 2011 wherein he has given reference of the order passed in the petitioner's writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 125 of 2011 wherein the counsel for the respondents has submitted that once the petitioner submits his joining, the same shall be accepted by the respondents. 6. The petitioner also drew out attention to the minutes of 13th SLCC meeting of Jharkhand State and 7th SLCC of project held on 26.03.2010 wherein it is clearly indicated that the World Food Programme has come to an end by 31st March, 2011. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent State has place on record a document showing rent of the office which clearly indicates that rent shown by the respondent is Rs. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent State has place on record a document showing rent of the office which clearly indicates that rent shown by the respondent is Rs. 100 per month only which cannot be for any of the office of the Government in present days as rent is much higher than the rent shown, therefore, this document is also completely false. 7. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner, perused the documents referred above as well as other documents and the bulky file wherein issue is only that whether the order dated 25th December, 2010 transferring the petitioner at Kharsawan of Seraikella district is legal and valid or not. We have referred the facts in detail because of the reason that the petitioner is not being assisted by any advocate and he has tried his best to find out fault in the Government working by drawing inferences from the various documents placed on record by the respondent State. It is very strange that even a document issued by the Government under the signature of the Joint Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-E) has been assailed to the extent that this document is forged and fabricated and one of the plea is that the dates written in this document clearly indicate that those dates have been manipulated. It has also been pointed out that in para-9 of this communication dated 30th July, 2011 it is clearly mentioned that financial sanction of the Accountant General is yet to be received. Meaning thereby, to defeat the claim of the writ petitioner, a decision was taken of spending Rs. 167.040 lacs and for creation of 88 posts including 44 posts already occupied. This only indicate that the petitioner, who is a layman, though holding a post of Range Forest Officer, does not know anything about the implications and consequences of making such statement in the Court and it also indicates that he can press the facts in any manner which suits him even in a matter of challenge to the transfer order. We are taking a lenient view because petitioner may be disturbed because of very many reasons and went to the extent of saying that the Government order dated 30th July, 2011 is forged and fabricated. 8. We are taking a lenient view because petitioner may be disturbed because of very many reasons and went to the extent of saying that the Government order dated 30th July, 2011 is forged and fabricated. 8. Now the petitioner's contention that one Budh Ram Gope became the Divisional Forest Officer by sending the document (Annexure-P) dated 28th February, 2011 is concerned, this Court repeatedly drew attention of the petitioner to the fact that Budh Ram Gope has made an endorsement for sending the copy of the letter to another officer of the Department by clearly mentioning (for – vaaste) and the petitioner has been also informed that whether he understands the meaning of the word “vaaste”, he repeatedly insisted that Budh Ram Gope became the Divisional Forest Officer and signed the document and this clearly shows the level of understanding of the petitioner. He was also informed that in the main page at page No. 1 also, under the name of the office of Divisional Forest Officer “vaaste” is not written nor Budh Ram Gope has put any signature. Not only this, even the petitioner himself drew our attention to the same communication dated 28th February, 2011 having No. 102 annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent State which is a photocopy of the letter containing the signature of the Divisional Forest Officer and this is the photocopy of the original letter whereas Annexure-P is only a typed copy of the letter. Even after looking this document, instead of understanding the true facts, the petitioner went on stating that the document (Annexure-B) submitted along with the supplementary counter affidavit dated 21st September, 2011 could not have been, when copy of the said letter has already been placed on record as Annexure-P ignoring the fact that in the office, the letter as well as their typed copies are kept even in official working. Even the draft copies prepared by the subordinate employees are kept in the record and after approval, final copies are signed by the competent authorities. 9. We have entered into these factual aspects only because of the reason that the petitioner, who while challenging the transfer order dated 25th December, 2010, went beyond all the limits in assailing all the acts of the Government servants. 9. We have entered into these factual aspects only because of the reason that the petitioner, who while challenging the transfer order dated 25th December, 2010, went beyond all the limits in assailing all the acts of the Government servants. The petitioner's contention that he personally knows that Budh Ram Gope has signed the said document dated 20th February, 2011 under pressure, but no affidavit has been filed by Budh Ram Gope to support the petitioner's contention nor Budh Ram Gope is party in this writ petition. The petitioner has virtually levelled all allegations of malafide so as to implicate some persons who may be behind him who want to harass him but he did not disclose name of any of such persons except impleading two persons A.K.Singh, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Ranchi and Sukhnand Kumar who is holding the post of Forest Range Officer, Sikaripara Social Forestry Range, Dumka against whom, during the course of argument, nothing has been said so as to indicate their motive behind passing the order dated 25th December, 2010. 10. The contention of the writ petitioner that there could not have been rent of Rs. 100/-for the office of the Government at the place where it has been claimed, and the documents showing payment of salary to the persons working in that office are fabricated, cannot be accepted and it appears that after filing the writ petition, the petitioner wants to take benefit of the subsequent developments for which he wanted to press these facts. The petition could have been dismissed with heavy cost but as we have indicated, the petitioner is not assisted by any counsel, therefore, the present L.P.A. is dismissed without imposing any cost.