Allahabad High Court
Pratap Narain Srivastava vs State Of U.P.& Anr. . on 7 November, 2013
Bench: Rajes Kumar, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61110 of 2013
Petitioner :- Pratap Narain Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Anr. .
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner is Executive Engineer posted in Construction Division-2 (P.P.), Sant Kabir Nagar. He has been transferred at Sant Kabir Nagar vide order dated 30.5.2013. By the impugned order dated 23.10.2013, the petitioner has been transferred to Bareilly.
The contention of the petitioner is that he has been transferred at the behest of the Minister, Public Works Department appears to be on the ground that he was not able to satisfy some of the worker of Ruling Party. The declaration of his transfer has also been made in a public meeting. The publication in the newspaper "Hindustan" in this regard is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He submitted that his work was found satisfactory and there is no complaint against the petitioner and in this regard a letter of the Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur Zone, P.W.D., Gorakhpur dated 28.10.2013 is enclosed. He submitted that the Minister had come to address the public meeting and not in the inspection and no discrepancy has been found in the inspection. The code of conduct does not permit any officer to make any arrangement of the public meeting of any Minister or any political party and to remain present in such meeting.
Raising the grievance about his transfer, the petitioner has filed a representation dated 28.10.2013, which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that in the newspaper publication, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned. He further submitted that in case if any discrepancy is found at the time of inspection and work of the petitioner is not found satisfactory, the petitioner can be transferred on the instruction of the Minister.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
In the representation, it has been categorically stated that the Minister had come to Sant Kabir Nagar on 17.10.2013 to address a public meeting and since the petitioner could not satisfy some political leader, therefore, the petitioner has been subjected to transfer. The Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur Zone, P.W.D., Gorakhpur vide letter dated 28.10.2013 has stated that the petitioner is discharging his duty with full skill and hard work and there is no complaint against the petitioner. In the transfer order, no reason has been given for the transfer. There is nothing to suggest that the inspection was made by the Minister and some irregularity was found on his part. In a public meeting, the officers of the Department are not expected to be present or make any kind of arrangement. They are only liable to be present and make arrangement relating to function of their Departments and not of public meeting.
In view of the above, we direct the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit within a week.
Put up on 14.11.2013 as fresh. Meanwhile, we permit the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 1 within a period of two days and the respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within three days. The copy of the decision shall be filed along with the counter affidavit.
Office is directed to provide certified copy of this order to learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, today.
Order Date :- 7.11.2013
OP
