AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop Chitkara, J
A Patwari, challenging his transfer, which was within six months of his previous transfer, has come up before this Court, on the ground that such transfer is illegal because firstly it is based on a complaint and secondly his tenure is incomplete in the light of Clause 10 of the Transfer Policy, which provides that the normal tenure of an employee at a place should be three years.
The respondents/State has filed a detailed reply annexing the complaint made by 17 villagers, alleging therein that the behaviour of the petitioner is objectionable and non-cooperative. Thus, even the State corroborates one of the contentions that the transfer was based on a complaint. However, we are not looking into this aspect of the matter.
Given the fact that the petitioner was transferred within six months of his previous transfer, on the face of it, cannot be done in view of the Clause 10 of the Policy, unless the place of posting is not far away from the place of his residence. Consequently, the transfer order dated 17.7.2020 (Annexure P-1), is quashed.
Given the nature of allegations in the complaint, it may put the people in peril. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate action, if he deems fit and proper.
In view of the above observations(s), present petition is allowed and the pending application(s), if any, are closed.