JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 24.12.2018, as contained in Memo No. 2095(23) [Annexure-6], issued by the Director in Chief, Health Services (Respondent No. 4) by which petitioner has been transferred from Additional Primary Health Centre, Bagrudih, presently on deputation in the office of Civil Surgeon, Jamtara to the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa to the post of Clerk. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the corrigendum dated 31.12.2018 [Annexure-7], issued by the Director in Chief, Health Services (Respondent No. 4) by which it has been notified that Additional Primary Health Centre, Bagrudih, as notified in order dated 24.12.2018, be read as Additional Chief Medical Officer Office, Jamtara and further direction has been issued to relieve the petitioner within three days from the date of issuance of the order. Petitioner has further prayed for stay of Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition. 3. According to petitioner, after death of his father, pursuant to the order as contained in Memo No. 1761, dated 14.03.1997, he was appointed as a Clerk on compassionate ground and posted in the office of Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jamtara. In the year 2003, when the Family Programme running under the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jamtara, came to an end by the order of the State Government, the services of the petitioner and others were adjusted against the post of Clerk in the office of Additional Health Centre, Ladna, Jamtara Block. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.09.2008, petitioner was transferred to the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Jamtara. Again pursuant to the issuance of Memo No. 36, dated 13.01.2017, petitioner was transferred and posted in Additional Primary Health Centre, Bagrudih, Narayanpur. Thereafter, pursuant to issuance of Memo No. 825, dated 25.05.2018, petitioner was transferred to the office of Additional Chief Medical Officer, Jamtara. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that all of sudden, pursuant to the order dated 24.12.2018, as contained in Memo No. 2095(23), the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand, petitioner has been transferred from the office of Additional Primary Health Centre, Bagrudih (Presently on deputation in the office of Civil Surgeon, Jamtara) to the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Garhwa to the post of Clerk. Subsequently, a Corrigendum dated 31.12.2018 was issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, by which it has been notified that the Additional Primary Health Centre, Bagrudih, as notified in order dated 24.12.2018, be read as Additional Chief Medical Officer Office, Jamtara and further direction has been issued to relieve the petitioner within a period of three days’ from the date of issuance of the order. It is alleged that on the basis of a complaint dated 03.04.2017, lodged against the petitioner in Chief Minister’s Jansambad, punitive order of transfer has been issued without any notice or show-cause or any opportunity of hearing. Petitioner has made detailed representation before the Director-in-Chief, Health Services with a request to cancel the inter-district transfer of the petitioner, but still no order has been passed on his request and as such he has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that from the letter as contained in Memo No. 2024(23), dated 22.11.2017, issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand, it is apparent that post of Clerk is a district cadre post for whom controlling and appointing authority is Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that from the Resolution, as contained in Memo No. 649(6), dated 26.05.1997, which deals with the procedure for transfer and posting of Class-III employees, it is apparent that transfer of cadre post of the district shall be within the district only. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that the impugned inter-district transfer is in violation of their own resolution as contained in Memo No. 649(6), dated 26.05.1997, which clearly stipulates that transfer of district cadre post is limited only to the district concerned. The order of transfer is punitive and has been passed on the basis of alleged complaint without hearing to the petitioner and as such the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and may be quashed. 6. Learned Senior Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the Judgment passed in the case of Ganesh Chandra Jha vs. Steel Authority of India and Others and another analogous case, reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 165 and paragraph-13 thereof reads as under: “13. 6. Learned Senior Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the Judgment passed in the case of Ganesh Chandra Jha vs. Steel Authority of India and Others and another analogous case, reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 165 and paragraph-13 thereof reads as under: “13. In Ganga Prasad Sharma vs. Delhi High Court and Others, 1976 Service Law Journal 750, it was held:- “Service under the State like service elsewhere, is essentially based on contract of service and is to be regulated by the terms and conditions embodied in the contract. In the case of service under the State such terms and conditions may be, and often are supplemented by statutory rules, regulations as well as non-statutory instructions that may be framed or issued, as the case may be, from time to time, all of which bind the public servant either by virtue of their statutory character or because of a declaration to which the public servant may subscribe. Subject to any provision to the contrary a public servant is liable to be transferred within the cadre and establishment. Unless there is a special provision in that behalf to the contrary, a civil servant is not liable to be transferred outside the cadre or the establishment except on deputation. He may, however, be transferred outside the cadre or establishment, otherwise than on deputation, only by his consent. Such a transfer without his consent would ordinarily amount to unilateral change in the conditions of service and could be brought about only by statutory sanction.” Learned Sr. Counsel submits that in the said Judgment, it has clearly been held that where transfer of an employee from one department to another results in some disadvantage, it amounts to change in the conditions of service and such a change is not permissible unless the statutory conditions in this regard are fulfilled. It has also been held in the said Judgment that transfer is an incidence of service but by reason of such transfer, a person cannot be transferred from one cadre to another cadre without his consent unless there exists provisions therefor. Learned Sr. Counsel has further relied on the Judgment passed in the case of Ram Ashis Ram vs. Rajendra Agriculture University and Others, 1993 (1) PLJR 89 and submits that there is no authority or jurisdiction to transfer an employee from one cadre to another without consent. Learned Sr. Learned Sr. Counsel has further relied on the Judgment passed in the case of Ram Ashis Ram vs. Rajendra Agriculture University and Others, 1993 (1) PLJR 89 and submits that there is no authority or jurisdiction to transfer an employee from one cadre to another without consent. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that it has clearly been held in the said judgment that any transfer outside the cadre, cannot be made without consent except on promotion. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that there is no allegation of any misconduct or moral turpitude in the entire service career of the petitioner. The Resolution as contained in Memo No. 646, dated 26.05.1998 clearly speaks that transfer of cadre post of District shall be within the district only. None of the charges against the petitioner has been proved during the enquiry and petitioner has been performing his duties diligently. Petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed and as such the same requires interference by this Court. 7. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 8. Ms. Kanchan Kumari, AC to learned AAG submits that upon an instruction of the Health Minister, a Committee headed by the Director, Health Services was formed to investigate charges levelled against the petitioner. Thereafter, a show-cause dated 11.02.2018 was issued by the Joint Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand to the Civil Surgeon, Jamtara in regard to transfer of the petitioner, followed by instruction of the same date for transfer of petitioner immediately and attach him in Directorate. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred and attached with the Directorate vide letter no. 2095(23), dated 24.12.2018. Again a Corrigendum letter dated 31.12.2018 was issued directing the Civil Surgeon, Jamtara for relieving the petitioner within three days’ from the date of issuance of the order. Learned counsel further argues that there was an enquiry conducted by the Civil Surgeon, Jamtara and the same was duly communicated to Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand vide memo no. 334/2017 (Annexure-G to the counter affidavit). Learned counsel further argues that there is a provision in the Health Manual that in the special circumstances on the basis of administrative recommendations, the Director-in-Chief is the competent authority to make inter-district transfer even outside the cadre. There is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order and the writ petition merits dismissal. 9. Learned counsel further argues that there is a provision in the Health Manual that in the special circumstances on the basis of administrative recommendations, the Director-in-Chief is the competent authority to make inter-district transfer even outside the cadre. There is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order and the writ petition merits dismissal. 9. Having heard counsel for the parties and after perusing records of the case as well as Judgments referred by the learned Sr. Counsel and discussed in details, I find that petitioner has not been afforded proper opportunity of hearing and impugned order has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. However, from the order dated 30.01.2019, it appears that impugned order dated 24.12.2018 has been stayed and petitioner is still continuing at the same place. In the circumstances, this writ petition is being disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to reconsider case of the petitioner by affording ample opportunity of hearing to him and after taking into consideration above referred judgments. It is made clear that if any adverse order is made against the petitioner, the same be also communicated to him. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforementioned observations and directions.