Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 207 (UTT)

NARESH KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-04-15

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Advocate, present for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State/respondent no.1. 3. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. 4. The petitioner is a Traffic Inspector in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. Vide order 14th July, 2014, passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation he has been transferred from Haridwar Depot to District Pithoragarh, Tanakpur, an order which he is presently challenged before this Court. According to the petitioner the impugned order of transfer is on administrative grounds where no reasons have been assigned. Hence it is in violation of the full bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Damyanti Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, 2008 (2) U.D. 517 , wherein it has been laid down that though a government employee can be transferred on administrative grounds but while doing so, reasons must be assigned in the order itself. 5. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have denied the transfer order on administrative grounds. All it says that it is in the interest of the Corporation. However, from the counter affidavit it becomes clear that there were certain complaints against the petitioner for which he was given show cause notice to which he has not given any reply. 6. In his rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner says that on 16.02.2014 while inspecting the bus of the Corporation which was coming from Meerut, it was stopped by the petitioner at Mohan Nagar and it was found that a person who had boarded on the bus at Meerut, was given ticket by the conductor of the bus barely a minute or two prior to the bus was stopped at Mohan Nagar. Hence, the report was given by the petitioner that one passenger was found without ticket. It is for this reason that on a complaint the petitioner has been transferred. Be that as it may, however, the petitioner says that only two and half years are left in his service and he will reach the age of superannuation in 2017. The fact however remains that the order dated 14th July, 2014 has been passed on administrative grounds and no reasons have been assigned which is punitive in nature. Be that as it may, however, the petitioner says that only two and half years are left in his service and he will reach the age of superannuation in 2017. The fact however remains that the order dated 14th July, 2014 has been passed on administrative grounds and no reasons have been assigned which is punitive in nature. Such an order cannot be passed without assigning any reason as otherwise it will be in violation of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Damyanti Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, 2008 (2) U.D. 517 . 7. In view thereof, the order dated 14th July, 2014, passed by the Managing Director of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation is hereby quashed. It is further made clear that in case there are some complaints against the petitioner and department wants to take disciplinary proceedings, it will be at liberty to do that. 8. With the above observation and directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.