Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 93 (RAJ)

Raj Behari Mittal v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-05

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 14.08.2017 (Annex.-6) passed by the respondents, wherein on telephonic communication, the petitioner has been transferred from Forest Range, Dabla to Forest Range, Lathi. 2. The petitioner was working as Forest Ranger Grade-I at Forest Range, Dabla. By order dated 01.02.2017, the work between the petitioner and one Manglaram, respondent No. 4, who was working as Forest Ranger Grade-II at the said Forest Range, Dabla, was distributed along with the persons working under them. The petitioner challenged the validity of the said order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by filing appeal, wherein on 23.02.2017, the order dated 01.02.2017 was stayed. Where after, the order impugned was passed, whereby the petitioner was transferred from Dabla Range to Lathi Range. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare look at the order Annex.-6 indicates that the Dy. Conservator of Forest, Jaisalmer has passed the order transferring the petitioner from one Range to another Range allegedly on the basis of a telephonic communication, which she had with Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and based on that, the order has been passed. It is submitted that the order is without jurisdiction besides the fact that the same has been passed only on account of the fact that the petitioner had questioned the validity of the order dated 01.02.2017. 4. Though allegations have been made against the respondent No. 4 alleging that the order impugned has been passed only with a view to permit the respondent No. 4 to work at Dabla Range, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that he was not pressing the said allegations. 5. It was prayed that the order impugned be quashed and set aside. 6. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the State, inter alia, seeking to justify passing of the order impugned based on telephonic communication. It is, inter alia, submitted that on 23.02.2017, a communication was sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, inter alia, indicating that the post of Ranger at Lathi Range was lying vacant and two persons, one Ranger-I and another Ranger-II are working at Dabla Range, and one person can be transferred to the vacant post at Lathi Range. It is, inter alia, submitted that on 23.02.2017, a communication was sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, inter alia, indicating that the post of Ranger at Lathi Range was lying vacant and two persons, one Ranger-I and another Ranger-II are working at Dabla Range, and one person can be transferred to the vacant post at Lathi Range. Where after, the order dated 14.08.2017 was passed based on the telephonic communication form the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. It is submitted with reference to order (Annex.-R/3) that subsequently on 28.08.2017 the passing of the order dated 14.08.2017 has been approved by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration). A submission is also been made that the order dated 01.02.2017 has also been withdrawn. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 14.08.2017 (Annex.-6) on telephonic instructions have been passed in extra-ordinary circumstances available and as the order has been subsequently approved, it cannot be said that the order (Annex.-6) has been passed is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The order (Annex.-6) dated 14.08.2017 reads as under:- dk;kZy; vkns'k Jheku iz/kku eq[; ou laj{kd gkWQ] jktLFkku t;iqj }kjk fnukad 12-08-2017 dks v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ ds eksckbZy ij gqbZ ppkZ rFkk fn;s x;s funsZ'kkuqlkj bl dk;kZy; v/khu M+kcyk jsat esa inLFkkfir {ks=h; ou vf/kdkjh xzsM+&izFke Jh jkt fcgkjh feRry dks bl ou e.M+y dh jsat ykBh ds fjDr in ds fo:) yxk;k tkrk gSA MWk0 [;kfr ekFkqj mi ou laj{kd tSlyesj 10. A bare look at the order (Annex.-6) indicates that the order has been passed based on the telephonic communication between Dy. Conservator of Forest and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from one Range to another Range under orders of the Dy. Conservator of Forest. Admittedly, the jurisdiction to pass the order for transfer lies with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and not with the Dy. Conservator of Forest. 11. From the material on record, it is seen that no order by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has been passed till date transferring the petitioner from one Range to another Range. Admittedly, the jurisdiction to pass the order for transfer lies with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and not with the Dy. Conservator of Forest. 11. From the material on record, it is seen that no order by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has been passed till date transferring the petitioner from one Range to another Range. The plea sought to be raised in the reply justifying passing of order based on telephonic communication appears to be only an eyewash, inasmuch as, the communication (Annex.-R/1) was sent by the Dy. Conservator of Forest on 23.02.2017 seeking filling of post at Lathi Range and no reason has been indicated as to why for six months when no order was passed pursuant to the communication dated 23.02.2017, what was the urgency that a written order could not be passed for transfer of the petitioner and only telephonic instructions were given. The fact that the order dated 28.08.2017 has been passed seeking to approve the order dated 14.08.2017 is of no effect, inasmuch as, there is no order of transfer passed by the competent authority. In view thereof, the order (Annex.-6) passed by the respondents cannot be sustained. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 14.08.2017 (Annex.-6) is quashed and set aside. The respondents would be free to pass an appropriate order in the circumstances of the case, if any need exits.