Dismissed

Rashid Javed v. Registrar General Allahabad High Court and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023WRIA/16291/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to his transfer from the Allahabad Bench to the Lucknow Bench. The court held the transfer was valid for administration and to ensure a fair departmental inquiry, refusing interference under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed, upholding the transfer order.

Rashid Javed Vs Registrar General Allahabad High… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192378

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16291 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Rashid Javed Respondent :- Registrar General Allahabad High Court And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parul Srivastava,Namit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶7

Petitioner, who is working as Sevak, Group 'D' post in the High Court, has been transferred from Allahabad High Court to its Lucknow Bench under the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 19th July, 2023 and consequential order has been passed by the Registrar General on the same day.

¶8

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that action taken by the respondent is punitive in nature as it is reflected from the order passed by the Registrar General that petitioner has been transferred for his alleged misconduct. Accordingly, it is pleaded that impugned action is quite arbitrary in nature as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before action was taken under the order impugned. Thus, it is argued that there cannot be said to be either any administrative exigency or public interest to compel for transfer of the petitioner.

¶9

Per contra , it is argued by Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the High Court that as per the instructions received by him a full-fledged departmental inquiry being No.- 13 of 2023 has been instituted against him with appointment of inquiry officer.

¶10

It is thus argued by learned counsel appearing for the High Court that it is prerogative of the Chief Justice to transfer any employee from Allahabad High Court to Lucknow Bench in the interest of better administration and, therefore, it cannot be said by learned counsel for the petitioner that order has been passed in arbitrary exercise of power. It is also contended that rude behaviour of a Group 'D' employee with Medical Officer posted in dispensary of Allahabad High Court is not appreciable and further in order to

¶11

have fair inquiry in the matter, petitioner has been rightly transferred to Lucknow Bench.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that though the order impugned refers to rude behaviour by the petitioner shown towards against the Medical Officer posted in dispensary of the High Court but the order records that the transfer has been made in the interest of administration.

¶13

It is true that particular conduct of the employee has been mentioned in the order of transfer but this by itself, in my considered view, cannot vitiate the transfer order to render it to be a result of any arbitrary exercise of administrative authority by the Chief Justice. Every head of the institution is well within his right to transfer or attach employee to a department/ section of establishment for better administration and this prerogative may be for by various considerations include behaviour of an employee of a department.

¶14

Now I also find that regular departmental inquiry has been instituted against the Group 'D' employee, namely, the petitioner. So, it is all the more important that he remains posted at Lucknow Bench to ensure a fair inquiry in the matter. His continuance at Allahabad may result in inconvenience to the complainant or may be possible that he may complain that inquiry was getting influenced by the medical officer posted at the dispensary.

¶15

In such above view of the matter, I do not find it to be a fit case that may require interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶16

Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 Atmesh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rashid Javed v. Registrar General Allahabad High Court and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid Javed v. Registrar General Allahabad High Court and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashutosh Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Khelavan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pramod Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others