Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 364 (UTT)

Chandra Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-20

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. By the impugned order, appellant was transferred from Tehsil Gadarpur to Tehsil Kashipur. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition finding no violation of the statutory rules and also that it does not suffer from mala fides. 2. Heard Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a transfer to accommodate another person. In this regard, pleading in the writ petition is as follows:- “17. That the order dated 24.06.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of law inasmuch as the same has been passed just to accommodate to Shri Pankaj Kumar at Tehsil Gadarpur, hence the same is liable to be quashed.” 4. In fact, we had asked the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to get instructions in the matter. Initially, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that actually, this transfer was made at the request of the appellant on the ground that there was some member of the family, who was ailing. Appellant protested this submission. Today, when the matter came up and when paragraph no. 17, as above, was pointed out by the appellant, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel changed the stand as follows:- The appellant was, in fact, transferred by the impugned order to accommodate Mr. Pankaj Kumar. Mr. Pankaj Kumar is the officer against whom complaints were received from the Bar Association of Jaspur, therefore, he had to be transferred. Then, in order to accommodate him, necessarily, the appellant had to be transferred. 5. Thereupon, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is the second time that the appellant has been transferred. Appellant was transferred two months ago on the basis of complaint against Mr. Pankaj Kumar. 6. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, who is transferred in place of the appellant, has not been made party in the writ petition. In fact, he has joined also. 7. We do not think that the appellant has established any case of mala fides. If the transfer is to accommodate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, who was actually transferred on the basis of administrative ground, then necessarily somebody would have to be transferred to accommodate him. This is what has happened. In fact, he has joined also. 7. We do not think that the appellant has established any case of mala fides. If the transfer is to accommodate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, who was actually transferred on the basis of administrative ground, then necessarily somebody would have to be transferred to accommodate him. This is what has happened. If there is violation of norms, insofar as appellant has a case that the appellant is transferred within two months, appellant must represent his grievances before the concerned authority. 8. In such circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that if the appellant represents before the third respondent within a period of one week from today, the third respondent shall consider and take a decision on his representation within a period of two weeks in accordance with law.