Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3831 (ALL)

Surendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P.

2014-12-23

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2014
JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Under challenge in this petition is an order of transfer dated 04.09.2014, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation, (Administration), U.P., whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Unnao to District Raebareilly. 3. The said order of transfer appears to have been passed in compliance of the order passed by the State Government on 04.09.2014, which has been annexed as annexure no.2 to the writ petition. The order of transfer clearly indicates that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds. In the counter affidavit, also it has been stated by the learned Standing Counsel that there are certain complaints against the petitioner which has led to passing of the order of the transfer of the petitioner. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that appointing authority of the petitioner is the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Unnao and not the State Government or the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation, hence, the impugned order of transfer could not have been passed for the reason that the same would be without jurisdiction. 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi vs. Union of India and others, reported in [ (1994) 2 SCC 416 ] and also on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.K.Majumdar vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in [1996 (14) LCD 887]. He has also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court dated 11.12.2014, passed in Writ Petition No.4734 (S/S) of 2014. 6. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the cadre of Senior Assistants is a State level cadre and the State Government, being an authority higher in rank than appointing authority of the petitioner, is well within its jurisdiction to require the transfer of any subordinate employee. 7. Primarily, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred on the basis of complaints and as such the impugned order of transfer has been passed as a measure of punishment. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order of transfer, it transpires that the transfer order has been passed on administrative grounds. Primarily, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred on the basis of complaints and as such the impugned order of transfer has been passed as a measure of punishment. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order of transfer, it transpires that the transfer order has been passed on administrative grounds. In my considered opinion, it is well within the jurisdiction of the authority concerned to place any employee on transfer in case of complaints etc. against such an employee. Thus, the order of transfer under challenge in the instant petition cannot be said to be an order by way of punishment. 9. Submission made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner is thus rejected. 10. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court are concerned, it is noteworthy that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the same do not have any application for the reason that the authority who has passed the order of transfer, admittedly, is the higher in rank (even as per the petitioner) than the rank of the appointing authority of the petitioner i.e. Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 11. So far as the transfer to its employees is concerned, the State Government being the highest authority can always require the appointing authority or any of its subordinate to effect the transfer of the subordinate employees either in public interest or on administrative grounds. 12. For the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. 13. There will be no order as to costs.