Tripura High Court
Mr. P. Roy Barman vs Mr. D. Bhattacharya on 23 September, 2020
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P(c) No. 606/2020
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Govt. Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
ORDER
23/09/2020 Leave to amend the cause title.
Petitioner is a Women Constable. The petitioner was posted at West Tripura district. Case of the petitioner is that her husband Sri Dip Datta Choudhury, who is a practicing advocate, was tested positive for COVID virus on 19.08.2020. He was treated at AGMC and GBP Hospital as an indoor patient between 20th August, 2020 to 24th August, 2020. On 13.09.2020 a local daily "Dainik Sambad" published an article in which the experience narrated by the husband of the petitioner during his treatment at the said hospital was extensively quoted. The narration of the petitioner's husband was critical of the facilities at the said hospital. According to the petitioner as soon as the said article was published, there was pressure on the husband of the petitioner to withdraw or disown the statements quoted in his name. He however, refused to do so. On account of this chain of events, within 48 hours of the publication of the news item, the petitioner was transferred from her present place of working to join the establishment of the Superintendent of Police (Gomoti) by the impugned order dated 15.09.2020.
Page 2 of 3
Counsel for the petitioner would point out that on the very next day on 16.09.2020 the petitioner made a written representation to the Director General of Police pointing out that her husband has recently recovered from COVID which has left him weak. Her parents are old. She also has to look after her old father-in-law and mother-in-law. She has three and half year old son whom she cannot take to Gomoti since she has full time duty hours during the day time. She requested that the order of transfer be reviewed.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was served only the order of release passed on 15.09.2020 without serving her the order of transfer which was also passed on the same date. Since the transfer order is common for in all nine officials, the petitioner could obtain a copy of the order and has annexed to this petition.
Ordinarily, the High Court does not interfere in matters of transfer. It is essentially for the employer to decide which employee should be posted at which station and the order of transfer which is passed in the interest of administration is not open to interference lightly. However in the present case, the chain of events is too closely connected. On 13.09.2020, a local newspaper publishes an article quoting the statements of the husband of the petitioner being severely critical of the Government hospital where he was admitted for about five days for treatment for COVID. On 15.09.2020 his wife who is a Government servant is transferred midterm. Going by her accounts, the order of Page 3 of 3 release is served without service of order of transfer. These events call for further inquiries. Of course final opinion can be formed only after gathering the version of the respondents, however, at this ex-parte stage there is sufficient prima facie material to issue notice and consider all aspects of the matter after the Government puts up its appearance and response.
Notice, returnable on 30th September, 2020.
By way of ad-interim relief, it is provided that the petitioner shall not have to report to the place of transfer and she will be allowed to proceed on leave. If she applies for leave, the same shall be granted as due to her. If any person has been transferred vice the petitioner to take over her present place of posting, the same shall be kept in abeyance. Question whether to grant further interim relief shall be considered later.
Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned Govt. Advocate, waived notice on behalf of the respondents to whom a copy of this order shall be provided.
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ.
Dipankar