Dismissed¶11

Purushottam Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 May 2025SPLA/181/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: transfer order 25.3.2025; punitive transfer versus administrative transfer; intra-district transfer; six years at one posting; dissatisfactory service; D.O. letter dated 2.1.2025 adverse allegations; opportunity to plead case; Chapter VIII Rule 5 Allahabad High Court Rules; intra-court special appeal dismissed; State of U.P. Medical and Health Department; writ petition dismissed 17.4.2025; no adverse inference without punishment order; service benefits.

What did the court decide?

None; the intra-court appeal was dismissed. The Court clarified, however, that in the absence of any punishment order, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant on the basis of the D.O. letter dated 2.1.2025. ¶11

Purushottam Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of transfer dated 25.3.2025, alleged to rest solely on serious allegations contained in the D.O. letter dated 2.1.2025 and passed without giving the appellant an opportunity to plead his case, warranted interference, given that the appellant had served at one place for more than six years. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The appellant/petitioner was not transferred by way of punishment but was shifted within the same district, having served at one and the same place for more than six years dissatisfactorily.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

An order of transfer shifting the appellant within the same district cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed an order warranting interference by this Court, particularly as he had served for about 6 years at the place of his posting.

¶10

Key takeaways

Unless a punishment order is passed against the appellant, no adverse inference can be drawn against him on the basis of the observations in the D.O. letter dated 2.1.2025; the D.O. letter cannot operate as adverse material for service benefits.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Division Bench (Attau Rahman Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, JJ.), Order Date 27.5.2025: Intra-court Special Appeal No. 181 of 2025 filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules against the Writ Court's judgment and order dated 17.4.2025, which had dismissed the appellant's challenge to his order of transfer dated 25.3.2025. The Bench held that the appellant was not transferred by way of punishment but was shifted within the same district after serving at one and the same place for more than six years dissatisfactorily; such an intra-district transfer, after about six years at one posting, warrants no interference with the Writ Court's judgment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Addressing counsel's request, the Bench further held that unless a punishment order is passed against the appellant, no adverse inference can be drawn against him on the basis of the observations in the D.O. letter dated 2.1.2025, which had been urged as the sole basis of the transfer.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31558-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 181 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Purushottam Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Narain Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anurag Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The present intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court on 17.4.2025 whereby the writ petition instituted by the appellant against the order of transfer dated 25.3.2025 has been dismissed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sole basis of passing the order of transfer was none other than the D.O. letter dated 2.1.2025 which contains serious allegations against the appellant-petitioner. In a case where certain allegations were made in the D.O. letter dated 2.1.2025 against the appellant-petitioner, before shifting him, he ought to have been given an opportunity to plead his case.

¶9

Having carefully gone through the impugned judgment/order passed by the writ court, we are of the considered opinion that appellant/petitioner was not transferred by way of punishment but he was shifted within the same district as he had served at one and the same place for more than six years dissatisfactorily. The order of transfer shifting him from one place to another

¶10

within the same district by no stretch of imagination can be termed to be an order warranting any interference by this Court, that too, when he had served for about 6 years at the place of his posting.

¶11

For all these reasons, we do not find any merit for interference in the impugned judgment rendered by the Writ Court. The intra-court appeal bereft of any merit is accordingly dismissed .

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the D.O. letter dated 2.1.2025 may not be read as an adverse material against the appellant-petitioner for any service benefits.

¶13

It goes without saying that unless there is a punishment order passed against the appellant, no adverse interference can be drawn against him on the basis of any such observation.

¶14

[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

¶15

Order Date :- 27.5.2025 kanhaiya

¶16

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

Purushottam Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Family Welfare Deptt. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Thru. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 3 Others vs Ex Hav. (Gnr.) Dileep Kumar (No. 15135570-W)

Ajay Kumar vs Secy. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, U.P.

Radhey Shyam Mishra vs Ministry of Environment Climate Change Thru. Secy. New Delhi Govt. of India and 6 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secy. Excise Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another vs Prem Singh

Sita Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Suryabhan Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi and 2 Others