Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 311 (HP)

Rameshwar Chaudhary v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-07

SUSHIL KUKREJA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. The petitioner is a Class-I Officer, who earlier being posted as Block Development Officer, Chhohara (Chirgaon), has been transferred and posted as Block Development Officer, Churag, District Mandi, H.P. and aggrieved thereby has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs: “a) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order/notification dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) may be quashed and set asidequa the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has again been transferred from Development Block Chhohara (Chirgaon) hard area to Development Block Churag in Distt. Mandi about 230 KM, when he had joined in compliance to order/judgment dated 03.04.2023 passed in CWP No. 755/2023 (on 11.04.2023) and has worked for about 01 year 10 months time in the hard area and has left just about 05 months for his superannuation (31.07.2025), in the interest of law, equity and justice. b) That the action of the respondents to issue order dated 20.02.2025 at Sr. No.2 after the issuance of order dated 06.04.2023 (Annexure P-4) in compliance to judgment dated 03.04.2023 passed in CWP No. 755/2023, may be held illegal and arbitrary, in the interest of law and justice. c) That the respondent may be directed to allow the present petitioner to complete his normal tenure and in case the department want to transfer the petitioner from hard area i.e. Chhohara Block of Chirgaon, then the petitioner may be ordered to be posted against the vacant post at Development Block Nahan in Distt. Sirmaur, in the interest of law and justice. d) That the issuance of the office memorandum dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. It is vehemently argued by Shri Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner cannot sustain, firstly, in view of the fact that the petitioner has completed only 1 year and 10 months at the present place of posting and has just left 5 months for his superannuation. Secondly, the transfer of the petitioner has not been effected on the basis of any administrative exigency or public interest, but on political grounds as the petitioner had initiated an inquiry into embezzlement of funds through District Panchayat Officer which did not go down well with the Pradhans, more particularly, the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Khabhal. Secondly, the transfer of the petitioner has not been effected on the basis of any administrative exigency or public interest, but on political grounds as the petitioner had initiated an inquiry into embezzlement of funds through District Panchayat Officer which did not go down well with the Pradhans, more particularly, the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Khabhal. Thirdly, since the petitioner has left only 5 months for his superannuation, he be given the same station. Fourthly, it is urged that an honest and upright Officer is being unduly punished by this punitive order of transfer. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. 4. At the outset, it may be observed that it is trite that transfer is an incidence of service and as long as the authority acts keeping in view the administrative exigency and taking into consideration the public interest as the paramount consideration, it has unfettered powers to effect transfer subject of course to certain disciplines. 5. Once, it is admitted that the petitioner is State government employee and holds a transferable post, then he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other within the District in case it is a District cadre post and throughout the State in case he holds a State cadre post. 6. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and courts should not ordinarily interfere with the orders of transfer instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. Who should be transferred where and in what manner is for the appropriate authority to decide. The courts and tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to “proper place.” It is for the administration to take appropriate decision. 7. Who should be transferred where and in what manner is for the appropriate authority to decide. The courts and tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to “proper place.” It is for the administration to take appropriate decision. 7. The administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redressal but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. 8. Therefore, even if, the order of transfer is made in transgression of administrative guidelines, the same cannot be interfered with as it does not confer any legally enforceable rights unless the same is shown to have been vitiated by malafides or made in violation of any statutory provision. The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. 9. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations without any factual background foundation or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive, it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. 10. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, such as on the basis of complaints. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration that even administrative action should be just and fair. An order of transfer is to satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution otherwise the same will be treated as arbitrary. 11. Judicial review of the order of transfer is permissible when the order is made on irrelevant consideration. An order of transfer is to satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution otherwise the same will be treated as arbitrary. 11. Judicial review of the order of transfer is permissible when the order is made on irrelevant consideration. Even when the order of transfer which otherwise appears to be innocuous on its face is passed on extraneous consideration then the court is competent to go into the matter to find out the real foundation of transfer. The court is competent to ascertain whether the order of transfer is passed bonafide or as a measure of punishment. 12. Reverting back to the case, we would now deal with each of the grounds as raised by the petitioner. 13. It is not in dispute that the policy of transfer as framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh is not applicable to Class-I Officers and, therefore, it is too late in the day for the Class-I Officer to contend that he cannot be transferred for want of completion of normal tenure of service or that he is on the verge of retirement. Therefore, first and third grounds, as raised in the petition are outrightly rejected. 14. As regards the second ground that the petitioner has been transferred not only on account of administrative exigency or public interest but on political grounds,suffice it to say that there is nothing on record to prove such allegations. 15. As regards the plea that an honest and upright Officer has been punished, even this plea is not available to the petitioner, who is a government servant. A government servant has to be honest and is to be seen as honest and he has to have it in him as a need and a requirement. Honesty is a virtue for a government officer/servant. It is not a credited qualification that one can claim or flaunt as a government Officer, but is a need, necessity and the requirement for him and the service. As an obedient servant, the petitioner ought to have joined at the place of posting, rather than, rushing to this Court. 16. It only needs to be reiterated that whenever a public servant is transferred, in the first place, he cannot disobey the order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to the Court to ventilate his grievances. 16. It only needs to be reiterated that whenever a public servant is transferred, in the first place, he cannot disobey the order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to the Court to ventilate his grievances. It was the duty of the petitioner to first report to work where he has been transferred and then make a representation regarding his personal problems. 17. Such tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.C. Saxena vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 9 SCC 583 wherein it was held as under:- “6. We have perused the record with the help of the learned counsel and heard the learned counsel very patiently. We find that no case for our interference whatsoever has been made out. In the first place, a government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed..........”(Underlining supplied by us) 18. The petitioner belongs to the higher echelon of service and is, therefore, duty bound to obey the lawful orders of the Government so that the same work as example for the persons working with and under him. 19. Moreover, the petitioner holds a transferable post and the transfer does not involve such an adverse impact and does not visit the petitioner with any penal consequences. The orders of transfer are not required to be same type of scrutiny, approach or assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration. No provision has been shown to this Court which may place any kind of embargo with respect to transfer of the petitioner from one place to another. 20. No provision has been shown to this Court which may place any kind of embargo with respect to transfer of the petitioner from one place to another. 20. As observed above, the scope of judicial review in transfer and also the scope of assailability of transfer allegedly is no more res integra having been considered in catena of decisions. Transfer is a normal feature and is an incident of government service and, therefore, no government servant can claim to remain in a particular post at a particular place unless his/her appointment itself is specific/non-transferable post. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons so stated, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine, so also the pending application, if any.