AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is the contention of the petitioner that his transfer is mala fide and without following any guidelines for transferring the officers. As against this, it has been pointed out that the petitioner is transferred because certain complaints were received against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Annexure A-2, the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, which is in the form of noting and order (C&DS) dated 27-8-2000 which indicates that transfers are effected at the recommendations of either Ministers or MLAs/MPs/MLCs.
In our view, transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned. For better administration the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing to do with the business of administration.
In this set of circumstances, the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. is directed to file necessary affidavit within six weeks from today pointing out rules and regulations for effecting transfers of officers including higher officers such as District Magistrates. A copy of Annexure A-2 (p. 124 of the paper-book) be also sent to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. along with this order by which the transfers of the officers are effected. Stand over for six weeks.