Sampurnanand Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 3012 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 23
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 10060 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Sampurnanand Verma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.3.2019 which is said to have been served upon the petitioner on 6.4.2019 after the contempt petition having being filed and notices were issued.

As per learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner who is serving on the post of Lekhpal was transferred from Tehsil Sadar, Lucknow to Tehsil, Buxi Ka Talab (BKT), Lucknow on 24.10.2017 (Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition). The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide transfer order dated 13.2.2019 the petitioner was transferred from Tehsil B.K.T. to Tehsil Mohanlalganj for the reason that one complaint has been made against the petitioner for his alleged involvement in illegal activities and there was one audio and one video clip to that effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he was not at all involved in any illegal activity but he was only discharging his duties against the encroachers who had grabbed the land and this transfer order has been passed against the petitioner only at the behest of those encroachers.

The petitioner assailed the transfer order dated 13.2.2019 by filing Service Single No. 5109 of 2019 and said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.2.2019 (Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition). By means of aforesaid order dated 22.2.2019 this Court was pleased to direct the District Magistrate to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner within a period of 15 days and till the decision of representation or till the expiry of 15 days no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner was not decided within stipulated period of 15 days but he was compelled by the S.D.M., Buxi Ka Talab, Lucknow to act upon the transfer order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the impugned order dated 22.3.2019 is non-speaking order and the authority concerned did not consider the grievance of the petitioner while passing the aforesaid order on the pretext that since the activities of Parliament Election, 2019 is going on and Code of Conduct has been imposed and the inquiry against the petitioner in respect of his involvement in corrupt practices is going on, therefore, no decision may be taken on the representation of the petitioner, thereby rejected the representation of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 22.3.2019.

In this matter the relevant record was summoned by this Court and today Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the letter of instructions dated 15.4.2019 preferred by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, B.K.T., Lucknow addressed to Chief Standing Counsel. The aforesaid instructions are taken on record.

Along with the aforesaid instructions one copy of the order dated 17.1.2019 has been enclosed which has been issued by S.D.M., Buxi Ka Talab, Lucknow directing the Tehsildar (Judicial), Lucknow to make inquiry of the allegations so levelled against the petitioner. It has also been indicated in said order that the video / audio clip is being viral on whatsapp, the same should be examined properly. There is one another letter dated 23.2.2019 is enclosed with the instructions which is report of Tehsildar (Judicial) and the same may be treated as fact finding inquiry. By means of aforesaid inquiry report dated 22.3.2019 the inquiry officer has considered video clip / audio clip and one gift-deed. As per inquiry officer in the video clip the face of the Lekhpal is being shown but in the audio clip of the Lekhpal may be examined further from technical expert. However, so far as the gift deed is concerned the inquiry officer has examined the factum of fraud and was of the view that prima-facie it appears that petitioner was indulged in corrupt practices and he appears to be held guilty. One charge-sheet dated 15.4.2019 against the petitioner is also enclosed with the aforesaid instructions and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that this charge-sheet would be served on the petitioner with promptness.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 5 of the writ petition which is order dated 2.2.2019 whereby on the basis of same complaint which has been discussed above the area of work of the petitioner has been changed on the administrative reason. As per learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in the wake of allegations, so levelled against the petitioner it has been decided that the posting of the petitioner at B.K.T. would not be appropriate is in the interest of administration. He has further submitted that the District Magistrate vide order dated 22.3.2019 has considered each and every fact in detail and after considering the allegations, so levelled against the petitioner and after applying its judicious mind the order dated 22.3.2019 has been passed.

Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India (2009) 27 LCD 886 referring para 16 to substantiate his argument that the transfer order may not be passed on any anonymous complaint. Sri Tripathi has also referred Arvind Dattatraya-Dhande v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 SC 3067 referring para 6 and 7. Sri Tripathi has submitted that in this case since the complaint against the petitioner has been made at the behest of encroachers against whom the petitioner was taking necessary action, therefore, the impugned transfer is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Per contra, Sri Ran Vijay Singh has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another reported in (2010) 13 SCC 306 referring para 12 and 14. In para 12 of the aforesaid citation the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service and the Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in the transfer order as long as they are not clearly illegal. Vide para 14 of the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed its view that if the High Court interfere in the transfer order without making scrutiny of the factum of illegality, it would not be proper for State-Administration to run the affairs of the State properly. In last three lines of para 14 of the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has held "...After all, the State Administration can not function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its back..."

Since the transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has got any indefeasible right to be posted at particular place so the petitioner may not legally claim that he be posted at particular tehsil. He has been shifted in the interest of administration. The case laws so cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case as fact and circumstances of present issue is altogether different from those cases. However, the ratio of the case so cited by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is applicable in the present case.

Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant material available on record and case laws, so cited by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that in the present case the authority concerned has taken cognizance on 2.2.2019 of the fact that one audio / video clip is being viral on the whatsapp wherein the involvement of the petitioner is being seen. Thereafter the area of the petitioner was changed in the fitness of things and also in the interest of administration petitioner was transferred. Not only the above the fact finding inquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar (Judicial) on 23.2.2019 in compliance of the direction being issued by the S.D.M., B.K.T. on 17.01.2019 and the petitioner was held prima facie guilty for the allegations, so levelled against him, therefore, The charge-sheet dated 14.4.2019 has also been issued and that would be served on the petitioner shortly as submitted by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Therefore, it appears that the authority concerned wants that the proper inquiry be conducted against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. Not only the above the impugned order dated 22.3.2019 is a well-reasoned order and each facts and circumstances relating to the issue in question has been narrated in the impugned order, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 22.3.2019.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being misconceived. Since this Court has taken cognizance of the fact that for conducting full-fledged enquiry the charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner, therefore, the competent authority is directed to serve upon the charge-sheet dated 15.4.2019 upon the partitioner at the earliest and the full-fledged departmental inquiry be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law following the principles of natural justice.

The aforesaid inquiry shall be concluded with promptness subject to the cooperation of the petitioner and thereafter disciplinary authority may pass final order strictly in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 16.4.2019

Om

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]