The State Of Tripura & Another vs Dr. Amiya Bhushan Majumder
2021 Latest Caselaw 900 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 4




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                              W.A. No.217/2021

The State of Tripura & another
                                                              ---- Appellant(s)
                                        Versus
Dr. Amiya Bhushan Majumder
                                                            -----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)                : Mr. D.J. Saha, Advocate.

         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                                        Order
13/09/2021
(Akil Kureshi, C.J.)

This appeal is filed by the State of Tripura in its authority. The

respondent is the original petitioner. He had filed WP(C) No.432 of 2021

challenging an internal note dated 02.06.2021 and a notification dated

07.06.2021. The petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Director in the

Animal Resources Development Department (ARDD, for short). Till

September, 2020 he was posted at S.V.H.-cum-Polyclinic, Abhoynagar from

where under order dated 09.09.2020 he was transferred and posted in the

Establishment (Gazetted) Section under the Directorate of ARDD. He was

given the charge of the Establishment (Gazetted) Section.

2. On 02.06.2021 the Director put up a note before the Government

suggesting that the petitioner's performance on the said post was not

satisfactory and on account of which the Joint Director (Planning) had to

handle greater load. He, therefore, suggested that the charge of the Gazetted

Section may be taken over from the petitioner and may be handed over to Dr.

Samarendra Das as an additional charge. On 07.06.2021 the Government of

Tripura issued the notification divesting the petitioner from the said position.

The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said internal note dated 02.06.2021

and the notification dated 07.06.2021. The learned Single Judge was of the

opinion that the contents of the note did not match the ACRs of the petitioner

and that every action of the Government must be reasonable and fair. The

learned Judge, therefore, quashed the internal note as well as the transfer

notification upon which the Government has filed this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the State Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty had

pointed out that the note in question was only an internal communication and

did not form part of the ACRs of the petitioner. She clarified that the contents

of the said note would have no bearing on the petitioner's service career. She

further submitted that for greater efficiency of service the charge was taken

away from the petitioner which would not give rise to any justiciable cause.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. D.J. Saha for the

petitioner submitted that this was the only charge and work assigned to the

petitioner. Upon being divested of this charge, the petitioner is left without

any posting. He submitted that the internal note was stigmatic in nature.

5. We are largely in agreement with the submissions of the counsel

for the State. Firstly, the note placed by the Director before the Government

was an internal communication and as long as it does not form part of the

service record of the petitioner, he cannot make any grievance about the

assessment of his work at a particular station. The learned Single Judge

compared this note with his ACRs, in the process losing sight of the fact that

the note contained recent developments and for which period the ACRs were

not even finalized.

6. More importantly, through such internal communication all that

the Director wanted to convey to the Government was that a more suitable

person should be given charge of the Establishment Section. It was entirely

for the ARDD and the Government to decide which person would work at

which station and in which capacity, as long as they do not breach the service

rules. The petitioner had no vested right to be continued in the same place

irrespective of the requirement of the department.

7. Having said that, counsel for the petitioner appears to be justified

in pointing out that Establishment Section was the only charge given to the

petitioner and after taking over the said charge the petitioner would be left

without any posting. The department cannot leave the petitioner in suspended

state and must give him a proper and permanent place of posting and duties.

8. Under the circumstances while setting aside the judgment of the

learned Single Judge, the appellants are directed to give a proper posting and

duties to the petitioner within a week from today. Appeal is disposed of

accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

     (S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J                        (AKIL KURESHI), CJ




Pulak