Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 664 (HP)

Kamal Nath v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-10-03

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 25.7.2012 whereby he has been transferred from Chamba Division to Baijnath Division vice respondent No.3. Petitioner joined respondent-Department on 19.9.1978. He remained posted in I.P.H. Division, Dalhousie with effect from 19.9.1978 to 17.3.1980. He served in Killar Division with effect from 18.3.1980 to 28.6.1985. He again served in Killar Division with effect from 14.11.1993 to 23.4.1994 and with effect from 6.3.1996 to 20.5.1999. He also served in Bharmour Division with effect from 21.5.1999 to 14.3.2001. He was again sent to Bharmour Division on 15.2.2005. He remained posted in Bharmour Division till 24.6.2009. Thereafter, he was transferred to Salooni Division in the month of June, 2009. He served in Salooni Division till 28.5.2010. He was transferred to Chamba Division from Salooni Division in the month of May, 2010. 2. Respondent No.3 was transferred from Dalhousie Division to Baijnath Division on 30.5.2012. The transfer orders of respondent No.3 were modified vide impugned order dated 25.7.2012 and now the petitioner has been sent to Baijnath Division and respondent No.3 from Dalhousie Division to Chamba Division. 3. It is clear from the details of the postings of respondent No.3 that she has not served in the tribal area. She has remained posted in Churah, Salooni, Palampur, Chamba and Dalhousie. Petitioner has remained posted in tribal area as per the details given hereinabove. He has joined his duties in Chamba Division only in the month of May, 2010. He has not even permitted to complete his normal tenure in Chamba Division. 4. Transfer is an incidence of service. The scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited. However, the Court can always intervene in case there is unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the administrative action. In the instant case, the only reason assigned in the reply filed by the respondent-State for transferring the petitioner from Chamba Division to Baijnath Division, without permitting him to complete his normal tenure, is that the transfer order has been approved by the competent authority. The discretionary power to be used by the authority must be in accordance with law. It is the duty of the administrative department to place before the competent authority all the facts, including the details of the previous postings/transfer of all the incumbents, who are likely to be transferred. 5. The discretionary power to be used by the authority must be in accordance with law. It is the duty of the administrative department to place before the competent authority all the facts, including the details of the previous postings/transfer of all the incumbents, who are likely to be transferred. 5. Accordingly in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 dated 25.7.2012 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be permitted to discharge his duties in Chamba Division. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.