John Gupta vs State Of H.P. And Others

Name,From,To,Station

Sh. John Gupta

D.o.BÂ​26.07.72

D.o.A.29.07.94

29.07.94","29.07.94

01.04.02

01.05.03

01.08.08

01.08.09

01.04.13","31.03.02

30.04.03

31.07.08

31.07.09

31.03.13

22.08.14","Karsog Division

Rampur Division

Karsog Division

Mech. Divn.Rampur

Karsog Divn. EÂ​inÂ​

C Shimla.

,23.08.14,to Date,"Karsog Divn U/T to

Bharmour Divn. on order

dated 11.07.19.

Name,From,To,Station

Sh. John Gupta

D.o.BÂ​‐

26.07.72

D.o.A.29.07.94

29.07.94","29.07.94

01.04.02

01.05.03

01.08.08

01.08.09

01.04.13","31.03.02

30.04.03

31.07.08

31.07.09

31.03.13

22.08.14","Karsog Division

Rampur Division

Karsog Division

Mech. Divn.Rampur

Karsog Divn. EÂ​inÂ​

C Shimla.

,23.08.14,to Date,"Karsog Divn U/T to

Bharmour Divn. on

order dated 11.07.19.

vitiated as has been held by this Court in its decision rendered in CWP No. 801 of 2013 titled Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others alongwith,,,

connected matters, decided on 05.07.2013.",,,

At first blush, the submission appears to be attractive, but bearing in mind the conduct of the petitioner such plea is not available to him. Once the",,,

order of transfer to be effected vide memorandum is conveniently suppressed and thereafter is not made to see the light of the day for nearly ten,,,

months, then obviously someone has to intervene. If it was not for the D.O. Note, the respondents would not have even come to know about the order",,,

passed by the 2nd respondent (supra) and the suppression of the speaking order (memorandum) prepared pursuant to such order.,,,

Further, the transfer of the petitioner on the recommendation of the MLA in the given facts and circumstances by itself would not vitiate the",,,

transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any",,,

complaint against an official, the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule",,,

that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. This was,,,

so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others (2007) 8 SCC 150 ,wherein it was observed as",,,

under:,,,

“8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned transfer order of the appellant from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana, District Meerut",,,

was made at the instance of an MLA. On the other hand, it has been stated in the counterÂaffidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that the",,,

appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred",,,

on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself itself would not violate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people",,,

in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its,,,

jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated.,,,

It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order.â€​",,,

Though a recommendation by a peoples representative requesting for a particular course of action in the realm of administrative functioning may,,,

not per se constitute an unauthorized or unwarranted interference or cause vitiation provided the consequential steps are taken by the authority of,,,

administration alone, the nature of action then to be drawn by the administrative department would be contingent on the attending facts. It is only when",,,

the contextual facts demonstrate servile subjugation of a administrative authority to the dictates of an outside entity in power by meekly abdicating his,,,

dominion, the resultant order or decision would be impeachable as antithetical to the foundational precepts of governmental functioning. The facts and",,,

circumstances of each case will therefore have to be evaluated.,,,

In addition to the aforesaid, we find that there are no specific allegation of malafide against the 4th respondent even though he has been made a",,,

party by name.,,,

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this case but find it to be a fit case where criminal case deserves to be lodged against the",,,

petitioner as also the then Superintendent GradeÂI in relation to the speaking order (memorandum). The third respondent is directed to take all,,,

necessary steps in this regard within a period of four weeks from the receipt of a copy of this judgment and the SHO, Police Station, Shimla is",,,

directed to take all necessary consequential action and take the investigation to its logical end uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove.,,,

The official respondents shall also ensure that the petitioner is not transferred back to any other station before the completion of his normal tenure of,,,

service at Bharmour Division.,,,

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s) if any.",,,