Devendra Singh vs Superintendent of Archeologist, Archeological Survey of India and Another

J.S. Khehar, C.J.—The appellant, who is an employee of the Archeological Survey of India, was transferred from Almora to Roorkee vide an order dated 19.04.2010. On the same day, i.e. on 19.04.2010, he was also relieved from his posting at Almora. Dissatisfied with the order dated 19.04.2010, the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 274 of 2010. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 23.04.2010, wherein this Court issued a direction to the respondents to sympathetically consider the claim of the appellant herein and pass an order within two weeks. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 23.04.2010, respondent No. 1 herein passed an order dated 11.05.2010, rejecting the representation of the appellant.

The order dated 11.05.2010, passed by respondent No. 1, was assailed by the appellant by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 380 of 2010. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 01.06.2010. Through the instant Special Appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 01.06.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 380 of 2010.

The solitary contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is, that respondent No. 1 was required to decide the representation filed by the appellant sympathetically, however, the same had not been decided sympathetically. Furthermore, it is contended, that in the original order of transfer dated 19.04.2010, no reasons were depicted for the transfer of the appellant. Accordingly, it is contended that, the reasons depicted in the present order passed by respondent No. 1, rejecting the representation of the appellant, cannot be read as the basis of passing the original order of transfer.

We have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. While passing the order dated 11.05.2010, respondent No. 1 was persuaded to take into consideration three important factors. Firstly, the District Magistrate, Almora had recommended the transfer of the appellant; secondly, the villagers of the area had also made a representation against the appellant; thirdly, the appellant had been making frivolous complaints, while he was posted at Almora. The aforesaid three reasons for transferring the appellant have not been assailed before us, in as much as the learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate, any extraneous reasons for the District Magistrate''s recommendation against him, specially when he is not, in any way, connected with the duties and responsibilities vested in the appellant. The District Magistrate, Almora being an unbiased individual, his recommendation could not have been lightly rejected. The aforesaid recommendation was coupled with the grievances expressed by the villagers of the area. It is quite un-understable, why the appellant should have addressed frivolous complaints, while he was posted at Almora. We are satisfied, that the three circumstances depicted in the order dated 11.05.2010, fully justify the original transfer of the appellant vide an order dated 19.04.2010.

In so far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant to the effect, that no reasons were depicted in the first order of transfer dated 19.04.2010 is concerned, it only needs to be recorded that an order of transfer is not required to record the reasons for the same. Since an order of transfer is not a penal order, we are satisfied, that non-recording the reasons in the order dated 19.04.2010 did not have any adverse effect thereon. Moreover, consequent upon the directions issued by this Court on 23.04.2010, whereby Writ Petition (S/S) No. 274 of 2010 was disposed of, it was obligatory for respondent No. 1 to disclose the reasons of the appellant''s transfer. The order dated 11.05.2010, disclosing the reasons for not accepting the appellant''s representation to remain at Almora, is therefore, fully justified.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed.