Allahabad High Court
S.I.C.P. Abhishek Gupta Pno -152533207 vs State Of U.P. And Others on 6 August, 2021
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9363 of 2021 Petitioner :- S.I.C.P. Abhishek Gupta Pno -152533207 Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
The petitioner challenges an order of transfer. The principal ground of challenge is that unsubstantiated complaints were made that the petitioner as well as the other employees were found engaged in the trade of illicit liquor. According to learned counsel, it is this allegation and complaint forms the bedrock of the order of transfer. In support of the submission noted above, learned counsel relies upon an interim order passed by a learned Judge on Writ -A No. 6223 of 2021 [Constable 102 Cp Moxender Kumar Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others] Having heard learned counsel for parties, the Court finds no ground to countenance the challenge as raised for the following reasons. Firstly, it is not the case of the petitioner that the order of transfer has been made mala fide by the respondents. In fact as the record reflects, no person in his personal capacity stands arrayed as a party respondent. In view of the aforesaid, no ground exists for the Court to evaluate the allegation of mala fides which is orally addressed. Additionally, the Court notes that the order of transfer recites that it has been made on administrative exigencies.
Regard must be had to the fact that the respondents may very often in situations like the present where allegations of a serious nature come to be levelled against an officer, that itself may merit the posting of the officer to another place in order to enable the respondents to ensure that a fair enquiry into the complaint is carried out. That itself constitutes an administrative exigency. The Court recollects the pertinent observations made by the Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature of Madras Vs. R. Perachi [(2011) 12 SCC 137]:-
"31.As seen above, the transfer was purely on the administrative ground in view of the pending complaint and departmental enquiry against the first respondent. When a complaint against the integrity of an employee is being investigated, very often he is transferred outside the unit concerned. That is desirable from the point of view of the administration as well as that of the employee. The complaint with respect to the first respondent was that he was dominating the administration of the District Judiciary, and the District Judge had reported that his retention in the district was undesirable, and also that departmental enquiries were pending against him and other employees, with respect to their integrity. In the circumstances the decision of the then Chief Justice to transfer him outside that district could not be faulted."
The writ petition consequently fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.8.2021 Arun K. Singh