Mukhram Prasad vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2059 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (S/S) No.1352 of 2023
Mukhram Prasad                                     ........Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                  ........Respondents
Present:-
      Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State/respondent
      no.1.
      Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.07.2023 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Dehradun to Almora on the administrative ground.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is posted as Deputy General Manager at District Co-operative Bank Limited, Dehradun. He also submitted that a joint complaint has been made against the petitioner by the employees of the office of petitioner alleging serious charges of misbehaviour and mental cruelty against the employees and a request has been made in the said complaint to proceed against the petitioner, so that they could get safe and positive atmosphere at the place of their work. Pursuant to the said complaint, petitioner has been transferred

4. He further submitted that since the transfer has been effected on the administrative ground, therefore, the said transfer order cannot be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as per the law and principles of natural justice should have been

followed. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Full bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Damyanti Bisht vs. State of Uttarakhand & others; 2008 (2) UD 517 and on the strength of this judgment, it is submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the authority to at least follow the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 & 5 who has given prior notice of the writ petition has come up with instructions and in those instructions, the copy of the complaint and inquiry report was submitted before the Court, which has been taken on record on 02.08.2023. He further submitted that on the complaint made by 23 employees of the office of the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry has been conducted by three Members Committee and the report was submitted on 26.06.2023 to the Registrar Co-operative Societies Uttarakhand. It has also been pointed out that in Clause- 7 of the said report, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has participated in the inquiry and he has been asked to explain the charges levelled against him, who in his turn has said that the allegations made upon him are baseless and false and consequently, the Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies Uttarakhand sent a letter to the Member Secretary of the Cadre Officer of the Centralised Service Dehradun for the transfer of the petitioner from Dehradun to any other bank.

6. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos.4 & 5 in the said preliminary inquiry, detailed reasons have been given and consequently, there

is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Member Secretary.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the transfer on administrative ground is not a punitive action affecting at all the petitioner. By means of the transfer neither the status/position of the petitioner is going to be changed nor there will be any change in his salary and status as well. As per the ratio of the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court, a prima facie satisfaction is necessary which has been gathered by the respondent and even after prima facie inquiry the impugned transfer order has been passed. It is apt to quote para 14 of the judgment in the case of Union of India & others vs. Janardhan Debanath & another; (2004) 4 SCC 245, referred in the Full Bench judgment as under:-

"14. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative

necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs."

8. In the case in hand, a fact finding inquiry has been conducted by the authority and accordingly, the transfer order was passed. There is no illegality in the impugned transfer order which warrant interference by this Court.

9. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.08.2023 AK