Suman Rana vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.

Delay Condonation Application No. 6909 of 2011:

Counter affidavit filed beyond time by the State is kept with the record. The Application, made there for, is disposed of.

Writ Petition No. 124 of 2011 (S/B);

Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the merit of the writ petition.

The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is the order dated 25th May, 2011, by which, Petitioner has been transferred from Block Chamba to Block Thauldhar and the person, who was at Block Thauldhar, has been transferred to Block Chamba.

Inasmuch as, in the order of transfer, it has not been stated that the same is being issued in public interest or on administrative ground, this Court, on 8th June, 2011, directed the order of transfer to remain stayed till the next date of listing. That an order is being issued in public interest or on administrative ground is required to be written in the order, itself, has not been established in the writ petition. We have not been shown any directive, whereby the authority, competent to transfer, is obliged to record the same in the transfer order. That being the situation, it must be deemed that the order was in public interest and / or on administrative ground, as the law requires to proceed on the basis that an officer of the Government, discharging Government duties and functions, discharges the same in accordance with law, unless contrary is proved.

In order to show that the order, in question, was passed mala fide, Petitioner has contended that, on being appointed as Block Development Officer on 17th January, 2011, she was asked to report to the Chief Development Officer, Tehri. It is the contention of the Petitioner that she reported to the Chief Development Officer, Tehri on 29th January, 2011 and remained attached to his office until 22nd February, 2011, when she was asked to take the charge of Block Development Officer, Chamba. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, on 29th February, 2011, she took the charge of Block Development Officer, Chamba, when she found that an advertisement has been published, inviting tenders for many items, by her predecessor. In terms of the said advertisement, tender forms could be had from her office on or before 14th March, 2011 and such tenders were to be submitted on or before 15th March, 2011. She found that no tender form was obtained by any intending tenderer in respect of 12 items and, accordingly, she cancelled the same. It is her case that, on 15th March, 2011, she put up a notice in the notice board and, thereby, invited quotations in respect of those 12 items. It is her contention that the quotations were to be considered on 21st March, 2011 and, on 21st March, 2011, after consideration of the quotations, contracts were awarded. It is her contention that she was asked by her superior authorities on 22nd March, 2011 to keep finalisation of those quotations in suspension. Accordingly, finalisation of those quotations was suspended. It is her contention that, subsequently, a letter of 9th April, 2011 was faxed to her on 9th May, 2011 and, thereby, finalisation of those quotations were cancelled and the Petitioner was asked to disburse the amounts at her disposal to the village panchayat. According to her, she has complied with the said direction and, subsequently, she has been asked by several authorities to explain her conduct in relation to calling for quotations and finalisation thereof and the Petitioner had given due reply thereto. It was contended that, in the background of the said facts, the order of transfer was issued and, accordingly, the same would suggest that, in mala fide exercise of power, Petitioner was sought to be transferred by the order impugned.

The facts, as narrated above, do not suggest any mala fide step taken. On the other hand, it suggests that the authorities concerned were concerned about actions on the part of the Petitioner in the matter of disposal of the State largesse and were making inquiry in that regard. Such inquiry is still on. If, at that stage, an order of transfer is issued, the records would suggest that the same was issued in exigency of service and in public interest, so that, in course of inquiry, Petitioner is not harassed by being present in the office, where the conduct of the Petitioner, in respect of discharge of duties in that office, is being enquired. We, accordingly, see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed while vacating the interim order.