Allahabad High Court
Surendra Singh Yadav & Another vs State Of U.P. & Others on 18 January, 2010
Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 617 of 2010 Petitioner :- Surendra Singh Yadav & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rakesh Pande Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mishra, learned Standing Counsel who has filed an affidavit of Jagat Raj.
The order under challenge is of transfer on the ground that certain charges were found proved against the petitioner and, therefore, he was being transferred in an administrative exigency. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the report of the Chief Development Officer, copy whereof is annexure-5 to the writ petition, wherein the Chief Development Officer has clearly stated that the petitioner is not at all guilty of any such charge, therefore, no case can proceeded against the petitioner.
Learned counsel contends that the impugned order of transfer is founded on nonexistent material and is perverse and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
The Court had called upon the Officer Jagat Raj to file his personal affidavit stating therein as to why he had not considered the report of the Chief Development Officer, which was in favour of the petitioner and had passed the order ignoring the same.
The affidavit of Jagat Raj which has been filed today, states that the order was passed due to mistake as the said report of the Chief Development Officer was under transit and was not traceable and the same was not before the officer at the time of passing of the order. It has been stated therein that the mistake is regretted which was neither intentional nor was intended to cause any harm to the petitioner.
Having perused the said affidavit and recitals contained in the order as well as the report of the Chief Development Officer, it is now established that the impugned order proceeded on erroneous assumption for which there did not exist any material. The order dated 19.12.2009 is, therefore, perverse and it is accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 18.1.2010 Shiraz