Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1823/2023 on 4 October, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
No Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS No. 1823 of 2023
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for
the petitioner.
2. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Standing Counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Petitioner is serving as Livestock
Extension Officer in Department of Animal
Husbandry of the State Government. He was
posted at Jhankat, Tehsil Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar since 2017. He is
aggrieved by his attachment at Chami,
Baram, District Pithoragarh vide order dated
15.09.2023 passed by Chief Veterinary
Officer, Udham Singh Nagar.
5. It is contended that Chief Veterinary
Officer, Udham Singh Nagar could not have
attached the petitioner at a place in
Pithoragarh, which is beyond his jurisdiction.
It is further contended that the allegations
made against the petitioner are unfounded,
as petitioner had discharged his duties with
honesty and sincerity.
6. Learned State Counsel, however,
submits that petitioner has been attached by
Director, Animal Husbandry, vide order dated
14.09.2023, which has not been enclosed by
petitioner with his writ petition. He further
submits that petitioner was assigned duties to
vaccinate Livestock of Village Pratappur,
Ratanpur and Jhankat, however, petitioner
did not perform his duties and also furnished
incorrect information regarding number of
Livestock available in these villages. The
Director's order has been produced by
learned State Counsel in Court, which is
taken on record. Perusal of the same reveals
that petitioner has been attached at
Pithoragarh in view of certain charges levelled
against him.
7. It is settled position in law that
attachment of a Government servant cannot
be ordered by way of punishment. The
punishment order passed in respect of
petitioner, however, reveals that he is being
attached in view of serious complaints against
him and also in view of act of omission and
commission by the petitioner.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2
SCC 592 has held as under:-
"16. Indisputably an order of transfer
is an administrative order. There cannot be
any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is
ordinarily an incident of service should not be
interfered with, save in cases where inter alia
mala fide on the part of the authority is
proved. Mala fide is of two kinds--one malice
in fact and the second malice in law. The
order in question would attract the principle
of malice in law as it was not based on any
factor germane for passing an order of
transfer and based on an irrelevant ground
i.e. on the allegations made against the
appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is
one thing to say that the employer is entitled
to pass an order of transfer in administrative
exigencies but it is another thing to say that
the order of transfer is passed by way of or in
lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer
is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is
liable to be set aside being wholly illegal."
9. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment,
the order of attachment passed in respect of
petitioner cannot be sustained.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed
and the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 is
set-aside. However, the respondents shall be
at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings
in respect of petitioner regarding allegation,
as mentioned in the attachment order. It
shall also be open to the respondents to
exercise power of suspension, if sufficient
material is available for exercise of such
power.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
04.10.2023
Navin
