Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1685/2023 on 13 September, 2023
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPSS No. 1685 of 2023
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the
respondents.
3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged the order dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure-1 to
the writ petition), by which, the petitioner has been
transferred from Tourist Rest House, Rudraprayag to
the office of Regional Manager, District Uttarkashi.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
has been posted as the In-charge, TRH, Rudraprayag
w.e.f. 22.06.2020. It is the contention of the petitioner
that petitioner has been transferred on administrative
grounds, however, there were no complaints,
whatsoever, against him for transferring him on
administrative ground.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that his case is squarely covered by a Full
Bench decision of this Court passed in "Smt. Damyanti
Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others" (SPA No.
143 of 2008) decided on 20.11.2008, wherein, it has
been stated that in case of the transfer on administrative
grounds, some prima facie inquiry is required to be
made and the employee should be offered reasonable
opportunity of being heard. However, the impugned
order has been passed in teeth of the aforesaid judgment
passed by the Full Bench of this Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam submits that since the
work and conduct of the petitioner was not up to the
mark, therefore, he has been transferred by the
impugned order.
7. The reason for transfer appears to be non-
convincing to this Court. This cannot be a ground to
transfer an employee. If a person is not found suitable
or up to the mark, on this ground, an employee should
not be transferred without holding an enquiry.
Moreover, if this was the reason for transferring the
petitioner from Rudraprayag, it casts a stigma upon him
which cannot be done without following due process of
law.
8. Moreover, the petitioner has not been made
available any material for transferring him on
administrative grounds. It has been held by the Full
Bench of this Court in paragraph no.13 of the judgment
of Damyanti Bisht (Supra) that no person can be
transferred on administrative grounds unless before
issuing the transfer order, the authority competent to
transfer has arrived at and recorded its satisfaction,
upon due verification and confirmation about the
existence and truthfullness of any one of the grounds
warranting the transfer of the person concerned.
8. This Court finds the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner convincing in view of Full
Bench decision of this Court referred hereinabove.
9. In such view of the matter, this Court does not
find contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent-GMVN convincing, and therefore, is
inclined to stay the impugned transfer order till the next
date of listing. Accordingly, it is directed that till the
next date of listing, the impugned transfer order dated
06.09.2023 (Annexure No.1 to the petition) shall
remain stayed.
10. Counter affidavit be filed by the
respondents/GMVN within two weeks.
11. Two weeks thereafter, rejoinder affidavit may be
filed.
12. List on 18.10.2023. (Stay application IA/1/23
stands disposed of as such)
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
13.09.2023
Ujjwal
