Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar Dubey vs State Consumer Dispute Redressal ... on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:58168
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5599 of 2023
Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Dubey
Respondent :- State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Registrar And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vyas Narayan Shukla,Raghvendra Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
2. Short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties is taken on record.
3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 16th June, 2023 whereby petitioner has been transferred from district Amethi to district Mahoba on the post of Peon. Also under challenge is the order dated 25th July, 2023 whereby petitioner's representation has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that although the transfer order indicates petitioner's transfer having been effected on administrative grounds but in effect it was on the basis of compliant as a measure of punishment. It is submitted that impugned order dated 25th July, 2023 clearly corroborates the fact that petitioner has been transferred on account of complaints made by him with regard to private dispute between petitioner and other villagers as also on the basis of complaint by one Smt. Alpana with regard to petitioner's misconduct.
5. It is also submitted that now that the lady who had made complaint against petitioner is also not posted in district Amethi and is in fact now working in district Prayagraj as is also admitted by opposite parties.
6. It has been submitted that even in the counter affidavit the opposite parties have admitted the fact that petitioner has been transferred only on account of aforesaid complaints and has therefore relied upon judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari versus Union of India and others; (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592 as well as of this court in the case of Sabhapati Pathak versus State of U.P.; 2012(30) LCD 1344 to submit that transfer can not be effected as a measure of punishment:-
7. Learned State Counsel on the basis of short counter affidavit has clearly admitted the fact that petitioner's transfer has been effected as a result of complaints made against him with regard to his functioning and misconduct with regard to other employees. It is however also admitted that no departmental proceedings have been initiated against petitioner.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) as well as this court in the case of Sabhapati Pathak (supra) have clearly held that transfer can not be effected as a mode of punishment. The said law is also clear from a perusal of Rule 15(a) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules (Volume 4, Parts 2 to 4).
9. Considering aforesaid facts that impugned orders have been passed as a measure of punishment instead of on administrative ground, the impugned orders dated 16th June, 2023 and 25th July, 2023 are quashed by issuance a writ in the nature of Certiorari.
10. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.8.2023
prabhat
