सियासी दखल और राजनीतिक रसूख से कराये गए तबादला आदेश नहीं टिक सकते, हाईकोर्ट की लखनऊ खंडपीठ ने दिया झटका, किया तबादला रद्द, राजनीतिज्ञों की पसंद नापसंद से नहीं चल सकता प्रशासन।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 2
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 21225 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ram Shankar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin Secy.Stamp & Registration & Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,R.B.S.Rathore
Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava,J.
Counter affidavit filed by the State and rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned Standing counsel for the State.
The present petition has been filed to challenge the impugned transfer order dated 10.08.2016, by means of which petitioner has been transferred from Gorakhpur to Camp Office, Lucknow and opposite party no. 2 has been transferred from Camp Office, Lucknow to Gorakhpur.
The facts in short in respect of the present dispute is that the petitioner was promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Inspector General Registration/Assistant Commissioner Stamps vide order dated 24.01.2011 and thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Inspector General Registration /Assistant Commissioner Stamps, Gorakhpur vide order dated 15.07.2014 and he has been working there. In the mean time, in year 2016, the transfer policy was framed by the State Government on 11.05.2016 for making general transfer. Recently, opposite party no. 2 was promoted to the post of Assistant Inspector General Registration on 24.06.2016, after promotion, he has been posted in the Camp Office, Lucknow. It appears that while opposite party no. 2 was posted in the Camp Office, Lucknow his transfer has been made from Lucknow Camp Office to Gorakhpur in place of petitioner on the basis of two letters written by two MLAs in favour of opposite party no. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid transfer order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that transfer order has been passed on the basis of political influence, since two MLAs namely Kismatiya, MLA Jangipur Constituency, Gazipur and Subba Ram, MLA, Jakhania Constituency, Gazipur has written letter favouring the case of transfer of opposite party no. 2, on the basis of which finally transfer order was passed after the approval of the Chief Minister.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand submitted that the State Government is the Competent Authority and has jurisdiction to make transfer policy but even if the transfer has been made on the recommendation of MLA, then the same can not be vitiated, in view of the judgement reported in (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 150, Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that in view of aforesaid judgement of Apex Court the writ petition challenging the transfer order is liable to be dismissed and petitioner may be directed to put his grievances before the concerned authority.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Upon perusal of transfer order, it is reflected that the transfer of the opposite party no. 2 was done on the basis of letters of two MLAs namely Kismatiya, MLA Jangipur Constituency, Gazipur and Subba Ram, MLA, Jakhania Constituency, Gazipur. The aforesaid letters have been taken into consideration and it is apparent that after taking approval of the Chief Minister, transfer order has been passed on political influence. On the issue of transfer done on the basis of political influence, the law in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court, time and again in the cases shown as under:-
"In Lokesh Kumar, P.C.S. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1998 (1) AWC 27, the Court has held that transfer in colourable exercise of power without administrative exigency only on political consideration is liable to be set aside. The transfer of an employee must be made considering the administrative exigency and not at the whim of any politician, including the Ministers, for the reason in such a case transfer order may be passed for extraneous consideration as held by the Court in Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow vs. Natthi Lal, 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1121.
In Pratap Narain Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1995 (1) Edu. & Service Cases 509; Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs. Director, Local Bodies, U.P. IV, Lucknow, (1994) 1 UPLBEC 189; Sheo Kumar Sharma vs. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Dehat, (1991) 1 UPLBEC 690; Gyatri Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1997 (2) UPLBEC 925; Pargana Adhikari, Sirathu, Allahabad vs. Ramesh Chandra Verma, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 156; Pawan Kumar Srivastava vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, 1995 (10 UPLBEC 414; Sheo Kumar Sharma vs. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 690; and Goverdhan Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 (2) UPLBEC 1356, it has categorically been held that a transfer order passed under political influence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
In Arvind Dattatraya Dhande vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 6 SCC 169: AIR 1997 SC 3067: 1997 AIR SCW 3105; and Suresh Chandra Sharma vs. Chairman, UPSEB, AIR 2005 SC 2021: 2005 Lab IC 1339; 2005 AIR SCW 1133 the Apex Court deprecated and disapproved the transfer of Government servants under the political pressure.
The Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian vs. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 263: 2013 AIR SCW 6277: (2013) 13 SCALE 340, held that at present the civil servants are not having stability of tenure, particularly in the State Governments where transfers and postings are made frequently, at the whims and fancies of the executive head for political and other considerations and not in public interest. The deterioration of the standards of probity and accountability with the civil servants is due to the political influence or persons purporting to represent those who are in authority. That the civil servants cannot function on the basis of verbal or oral instructions, orders, suggestions, proposals, etc. and they must also be protected against wrongful and arbitrary pressure exerted by the administrative superiors political executive, business and other vested interests.
Thus in view of the above, undoubtedly, it remains settled legal proposition that Government servants should not be transferred on the will of the politician and transfer orders have to be made as per the administrative requirements."
Wherein, this Court finds that such transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law, if having political influence.
In the present case learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has argued that the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Mohd Masood Ahmad (supra) will apply in the present case, he may appear to be correct in view of the facts stated in the above said case, where MLA of the local constituency has recommended regarding transfer. But taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case neither the MLAs were of the local constituency, Gorakhpur nor they belong to the constituency where petitioner was posted. Therefore, in these circumstances the transfer order is not in accordance with law. The Government has been persuaded only on the basis of recommendation of MLAs. We, therefore, do not approve the transfer order passed by the opposite party.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Order dated 10.08.2016 by which transfer of petitioner and opposite party no.-2 has been made is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Gorakhpur from where he has been transferred.
Order Date :- 19.9.2016
Bhanu
