Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.) The respondents are served.

2. Counter-affidavit stands filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 seeks time to file a counter-affidavit. Let the same be filed within ten days.

4. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date.

5. Mr. Abhijay Negi has pressed for an urgent interim relief. Mr. Negi points out that the relief sought in the writ petition is for a writ of quo-warranto against respondent No. 4, to say, that he has no authority to hold the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/ Head of Forest Force (hereinafter referred to as 'PCCF/HoFF') in the State of Uttarakhand after the order of the CAT dated 24.02.2023, in the light of the specific condition in his Appointment Order dated 17.05.2022. The petitioner has also sought a direction to restrain respondent No. 4 from functioning as PCCF/HoFF, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the CAT, Allahabad (Circuit Bench, Nainital). The petitioner also seeks a direction to restore him to the post of PCCF/HoFF with immediate effect, as directed by the Tribunal under the aforesaid order. Further reliefs have also been sought by the petitioner.

6. The appointment order of respondent No. 4, upon transfer of the petitioner from the said post, has been placed on record. The same specifically states that the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of PCCF/HoFF is subject to the order passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 98 of 2022.

7. In Paragraph-8 of the order dated 18.04.2022, the Court has directed that the record of the said writ petition be transferred to CAT, Allahabad, and it was hoped that the Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the matter early. The said writ petition had been preferred by the petitioner to assail his transfer to the post of Chairman, Uttarakhand Biodiversity Board, Dehradun. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court vide order dated 12.12.2022, while declining to interfere with the impugned order passed by this Court, requested the CAT to take up the matter, pending before it, for hearing on the day it was scheduled to be listed, i.e. on 20.02.2023, and dispose of the same expeditiously.

25. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the O.A. is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.11.2021 is quashed." Respondents are directed to restore the applicant to the post of PCCF (HOFF) forthwith."

9. Mr. Negi submits that despite the direction issued by the Tribunal on 24.02.2023 quashing the transfer of the petitioner from the post of PCCF /HoFF, and directing restoration of the petitioner in the said position, the respondents have not complied with the said order till date. He submits that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.04.2023, and it is absolutely essential for the petitioner who is an officer of the State and his honour that he is restored to his position as PCCF/HoFF forthwith.

13. Despite the Tribunal allowing the Transfer Application of the petitioner on 24.02.2023 quashing the petitioner's transfer and directing restoration in the post of PCCF/HoFF, the said order was neither immediately assailed by the Government, nor even by respondent No. 4. They have taken their own sweet time, while the date of retirement is fast approaching, and today Mr. Rawat submits that the writ petition will be filed shortly.

14. Looking to the fact that the Tribunal has found, on the basis of the record, that the transfer of the petitioner was made merely on the basis of a Note prepared by the concerned Minister and without following the statutory procedure, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal dated 24.02.2023 should be implemented forthwith. Pertinently, even after the petitioner was transferred out and respondent No. 4 has been brought-in as PCCF/HoFF, the matter was not placed before the CSB for post facto approval. Merely because the Minister concerned is one of the members of the CSB that itself does not authorize him to unilaterally take a decision to transfer the petitioner in the manner that he did.