Arvind Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Anuj Kudesia, learned Senior Counsel & learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Diwakar Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶12

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 29.12.2025 and Relieving Order dated 02.01.2026 whereby petitioner employed on the post of Assistant Commissioner (Food) Grade II (ACF - II)/Designated Officer has been transferred from district Ghaziabad to district Mahoba.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier as well, petitioner was attached vide order dated 27.10.2025 and the said order alongwith Relieving Order dated 06.11.2025 were challenged before this Court in Writ-A No. 14037 of 2025 in which vide order dated 08.12.2025, operation of the impugned orders therein were stayed until further orders of the Court.

¶14

It is submitted that on the very same day, when the attachment order was stayed, petitioner was suspended by means of order dated 08.12.2025 in contemplation of departmental proceedings. The said order was challenged in Writ-A No. 14448 of 2025 and the same was also stayed by means of order dated 15.12.2025 whereafter the impugned order has been passed on 29.12.2025.

¶15

WRIA No. 49 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Learned Counsel for petitioner therefore submits that the impugned is actuated by malice in law since it has been resorted to as a measure of punishment by the opposite parties merely on account of the fact that he approached this Court to challenge the earlier orders. He has placed reliance on judgments rendered by Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1706 as well as of this Court in Writ-A No. 15202 of 2025, Mohar Singh Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and others .

¶18

Mr. Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that a perusal of the earlier order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 14037 of 2025 while staying the order of transfer dated 27.12.2025 and the Relieving Order dated 06.11.2025, liberty had been granted to the authorities to consider transfer of petitioner in case of administrative need or public interest, if so required. It is submitted that it is in terms of liberty provided that the impugned order had been passed. It is further submitted that since the inquiry proceedings are being conducted at Ghaziabad there is no occasion for petitioner to remain posted in district Ghaziabad. It is submitted that the impugned order has not been passed in terms of malice in law principles of which would not be attracted.

¶19

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as indicated here-in-above are admitted that order of attachment dated 27.10.2025 and the subsequent order of suspension dated 08.12.2025 were stayed by this Court. Subsequently the impugned order of transfer has been passed.

¶20

It is noticeable that while staying the order of attachment dated 27.10.2025, liberty had been granted to the opposite parties to transfer petitioner in case of administrative need or public interest, if so required.

¶21

A perusal of the impugned order of transfer dated 29.12.2025 will make it evident that it is not stigmatic in nature and is in fact simplicitor. The order appears to have been passed in terms of liberty

¶22

WRIA No. 49 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

which has been granted to opposite parties. In such circumstances, the aspect of malice in law does not hold good. It is also a fact admitted that departmental proceedings are being conducted at Lucknow and therefore, there cannot be any impediment caused to the petitioner by his transfer from Ghaziabad to Mahoba.

¶25

It is settled law that transfer being an incidence of service is within realm and discretion of appointing authority.

¶26

So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner are concerned, in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi (supra), the aspect of motive and foundation has been elaborated, but it is evident that the same pertains to termination of probationer in service. Evidently, the facts and circumstances of the case would be inapplicable in the case of transfer.

¶27

In the case of Mohar Singh Kushwaha (supra) the factual situation also is quite different since after stay of order of suspension, the authorities had posted the petitioner elsewhere indicating it to be an order of re-instatement. It was therefore held that when suspension order is stayed, the delinquent employee would be required to be posted in the same place where he was posted prior to passing of the suspension order. For the said factors, the said judgment also is inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶28

In view of discussion made here-in-above, this Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence.

¶29

Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶30

January 14, 2026 lakshman

¶31

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶32

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

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pannelal (PNO-122380152) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Meena Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 5 Others

Rajesh Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Udai Veer Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and 2 Others

Umesh Chandra Tiwari (S.I. PNO-870920529) and 10 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P., Lko. and 2 Others

Gyan Prakash Dwivedi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others