Uttarakhand High Court
Parvinder Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 990 of 2021
Parvinder Kumar ........... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to
call for the record and quash the impugned order dated
11/10/2019 and order dated 22/07/2021 passed by the
respondent No 5 and 4 (contained in Annexure No 7 and
10 of the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus
directing and commending the respondents not to transfer
the petitioner from the Government higher Secondary
School Inayatpur (Bhagwanpur) Hariwar to Government
Inter collage Kathur, Hindoe (Bhilangna) Tehri Garhwal.
(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or directions which this
hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in fats and
circumstances.
(iv) To award cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is serving as Assistant Teacher in the
Government Higher Secondary School Inayatpur (Bhagwanpur),
Haridwar. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26.05.2019, a
complaint was filed against another teacher of the school namely
Mohar Singh by some of the parents relating to beating and torture of
the students. A police case was also lodged against Mohar Singh under
Section 323, 506 IPC. A departmental inquiry was also conducted
against him. He was served charge-sheet and the Inquiry Officer finally
recommended transfer of the Principal of the school and many other
teachers, including the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no allegations
against him; he was never served any charge-sheet; no departmental
inquiry was conducted against him and he has been transferred without
any reason.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner had already worked in Ati Durgam Area for 10 years. Since,
2016 he has been working in the present school. With regard to beating
of the students, the department conducted an inquiry against a teacher
Mohar Singh. There was no inquiry against the petitioner, he was never
heard before the transfer order was passed. Therefore, the impugned
order deserves to be set aside. In the alternate he also argued that
petitioner may be given an opportunity by the department to explain his
conduct. Based on his explanation, the department may then take any
action, as permissible under law.
6. Learned State counsel would submit that, in fact,
petitioner had already submitted his representation to the Regional
Additional Director, Madhyamik Shiksha, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri
(Annexure No.7 to the writ petition).
7. Transfer is always done in the exigencies of public
interest. Unless statutes provides for it, nobody can claim that he
should not be transferred. It is not punishment as such. The transfer
order which is impugned is neither stigmatic nor punitive. The Inquiry
Officer has concluded that there are groups in the school which vitiates
academic atmosphere of the school. The Inquiry Officer has not
recommended the transfer of the petitioner alone, instead
recommendation has also been made to transfer the Principal and other
teachers of the school. It is not even argued or alleged that there has
been any malafide on the part of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner has
not been singled out.
8. It is settled law that the Court should be much slow in the
matter of transfers. Of course, as stated, if there are some statutory
restrictions on the transfer that may be a consideration before the Court
as and when any transfer order is challenged on the ground that it
violates statutory rights of some of the employees. Also, in case of
malafide apparent on the record, the Court may consider to look into
the matter. But, here in the instant case, it is not stated to be a case of
violation of any rights or any malafide. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that there is no reason to make any interference in the writ
jurisdiction.
9. Insofar as, consideration of any representation that may be
filed by the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is always free to
make representation as he may be advised and permissible to a
Government employee. The writ petition itself record that the petitioner
has already been relieved from the school on 26.07.2021. Therefore, no
directions for consideration of any representation is also required in the
matter.
10. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
06.08.2021
Sanjay
