Dheer Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2527 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL

      THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
                      AND
     JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE

        WRIT PETITION (S/B) No.461 OF 2022

                  17TH AUGUST, 2022

Dheer Singh                                ...... Petitioner

                              Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others       ...... Respondents


Presence: -
Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel along with
Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)


          The petitioner, who was posted as Forest Range

Officer at Rajaji Tiger Reserve, Dehradun, preferred this

petition being aggrieved by his transfer vide order dated

06.07.2022,    transferring     him   to   Van   Vardhanik,

Uttarakhand, Nainital in public interest on the basis of the

recommendations made by the Transfer Committee on

19.05.2022 and 05.07.2022. The petitioner claimed that

the said transfer order was in violation of the judgment of

the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.03.2017 and

also in violation of Section 7(d)(1) of the Transfer Act,

2017.
 2.         The primary grievance of the petitioner was

that even though he was holding the position of Forest

Range Officer, he was sought to be transferred out of

territorial forest range to non-territorial forest range while

others were sought to be posted in the territorial forest

range despite not holding the position of Forest Range

Officer.

3.         On the last date, the learned Chief Standing

Counsel - Mr. C.S. Rawat had informed the Court that

disciplinary action is proposed to be taken against the

petitioner and the petitioner is aware of the same.

However, the petitioner has concealed that fact from the

Court. The transfer of the petitioner has been made in

public interest, with a view to be able to proceed against

the petitioner and to be able to conduct a fair inquiry in

the allegations made against him.

4.         On the aforesaid disclosure being made, learned

counsel for the petitioner had taken an adjournment to

take instructions. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner has given his response to the

show-cause notice issued to him and he has denied the

charges levelled against him. He submits that thereafter,

there is no further progress in the matter. Since the

transfer was not made on administrative grounds, he did


                              2
 not consider it necessary to make a disclosure of the

inquiry being contemplated against him in pursuance of

the show-cause notice issued to him.

5.        We have heard the learned counsel and we are

of the view that the petitioner should have come to the

Court with clean hands by making full and complete

disclosure of the relevant facts. The allegation made

against the petitioner in the show-cause notice was with

regard to the construction of an illegal road inside the

reserve forest to enable certain private tour operators to

access the forest.

6.        Since the allegation is serious, in our view, the

petitioner could be transferred and, in the light of the

aforesaid non-disclosure of relevant facts, we are not

inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

7.        Accordingly, the present writ-petition stands

dismissed.


                                   ________________
                                    VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.



                         _______________________
                        RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.

Dated: 17th August, 2022 BS/SS