Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/364/2021 on 2 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 364 of 2021
2nd September, 2021
Between:
Dinesh Kumar Singh .....Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. .......Respondents
Counsel for the : Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned
petitioner. Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Ankush Negi, Advocate.
Counsel for the : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned
State. Standing Counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGEMENT: (per Hon'ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.08.2021
passed by Secretary, Irrigation Department, Dehradun,
whereby he has been transferred from Haridwar to
Dharchula, Pithoragarh.
2. In para 4 of the writ petition, petitioner has
admitted that he has been posted in and around District
Haridwar for most part of his service career.
3. By an order dated 01.09.2021, instructions were
sought from the State Counsel. On instructions, learned
Standing Counsel for the State has pointed out that Kumbh
Mela Adhikari had made a complaint against the petitioner
of negligence in official duties and he further apprised us
that disciplinary enquiry was proposed against him.
4. Transfer is an incidence of service and employer
is the best judge regarding choice of place where a
government servant is to be posted. Thus interference in
transfer order by constitutional Court should be minimal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
transfer on administrative ground cannot be made casually
or in a routine manner and such transfer can be made only
when there is a complaint of serious misconduct. In support
of this contention, he has relied upon Section 18(4) of the
Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017,
which reads as under:-
2
"Section 18(4). On enquiry, on the grounds of serious
complaints of misconduct, misbehaviour with senior
officers and lack of interest in work etc. after necessary
enquiry and confirmation, transfer of such employee
may be made on administrative grounds:
Provided that the transfer on administrative
grounds shall not be made casually or on the basis of
complaints of routine nature and in the orders of such
transfer it shall be necessary to mention Administrative
Grounds."
6. The aforesaid provision is of no help to the
petitioner. In the present case, a very Senior Officer has
made a complaint against petitioner, therefore it cannot be
said that petitioner has been transferred without there
being any adverse material.
7. In view of the statement made by learned
Standing Counsel that there is a complaint against the
petitioner and disciplinary proceedings are also likely to be
initiated against him, the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner has been made
casually based on a routine complaint, is unacceptable.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon a full bench Judgment in Special Appeal No.
143 of 2008 titled as "Smt. Damyanti Bisht vs. State of
Uttarakhand". However, the said judgment is not applicable
to the facts of the present case.
3
9. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the
matter. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
_____________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt:2nd September, 2021
Mamta/Neha
