Ahmad Abrar and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Law, Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7173

¶3

Court No. - 25

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9408 of 2023

¶5

Petitioner :- Ahmad Abrar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Law, Civil Secrt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.2023 passed by the Registrar General of this Court transferring the first petitioner, a Senior Assistant, from the Judgeship of District Bahriach to the Judgeship of District Mahrajganj and the second petitioner, a Junior Assistant, from the Bahraich Judgeship to the Pratapgarh Judgeship, both on administrative grounds.

¶7

2. Parties have exchanged affidavits.

¶8

3. Admit.

¶9

4. Heard forthwith.

¶10

5. Heard Mr. Rajat Rajan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Ritika Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel for the High Court.

¶11

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are facing three departmental inquiries in the Judgeship of Bahraich and the impugned transfer order has been passed as a measure of penalty, which is an extraneous consideration. The submission is that the impugned order is therefore vitiated by mala fides in law, if not in fact . Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgement of the

¶12

2

¶13

Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 259 to submit that the power of transfer cannot be utilized as a substitute for the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. If that is done, it would be exercise of power on extraneous considerations.

¶14

7. On the other hand, Ms. Ritika Singh submits that the impugned order has not been passed as a measure of penalty at all, as the transfer is on administrative grounds. The details of non-judicial inquiries pending against the petitioners have been disclosed in para 11 of the counter affidavit. But, it is said that those inquiries would be taken to their logical conclusion ascertaining the guilt or otherwise of the petitioners on the charges involved.

¶15

8. So far as the transfer order is concerned, in case of petitioner no.1, it is pointed out that he is an employee who has made the administration of Courts difficult in the Bahraich Judgeship. He has availed 'earned leave' and 'medical leave' in 39 instances and had associations with miscreants in the Bahraich Judgeship. It is indicated in detail what are the different actions of the two petitioners that show how they are very inconvenient employees in the Judgeship of Bahraich. Therefore, in the interest of smooth judicial administration, they have been transferred on administrative grounds to two different Judgeships.

¶16

9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of opinion that the principle in Somesh Tiwari (supra) is attracted, where the foundation of transfer order is an act of indiscipline or misconduct. The petitioners are facing disciplinary proceedings, for whatever acts of indiscipline or misconduct have been attributed. Here, the transfer orders

¶17

3

¶18

impugned are not referable to any act of indiscipline. These do not even say so. The counter affidavit filed shows that there are several instances where the actions of the two petitioners and their conduct made functioning of the Courts at Bahraich difficult. It is, therefore, for administrative reasons that the petitioners have been transferred by a decision of this Court on the administrative side from Bahraich to the two different Judgeships of Maharajganj and Pratapgarh.

¶19

10. In the opinion of this Court, it is not a case of penal transfer, where the order of transfer may be quashed on that ground. Otherwise, the petitioners hold a transferable post, where this Court, either in public interest or on administrative ground, can transfer an employee from one Judgeship to another within the State.

¶20

11. On the facts that emerge here, this Court finds that the impugned order of transfer is squarely within four corners of Rule 28 of the U.P. State District Courts Service Rules, 2013.

¶21

12. No case for interference with the impugned order is made out.

¶22

13. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed .

¶23

14. It is made clear that anything said in this order will not prejudice the interest of the petitioners in the pending disciplinary proceedings which will be decided on their own merits.

¶24

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 -Amit K-/ Anoop

¶26

( J.J. Munir, J. )

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANOOP KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ahmad Abrar and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Law, Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmad Abrar and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Law, Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 3 Others

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and 2 Others

Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Asif Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Saurabh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Mahesh Prasad Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Lko and 2 Others