Respondent's Junior Judge Sharma disposed of a Contempt Petition and Writ Petition by quashing disputed transfer orders involving the petitioner and another officer, relying on Supreme Court precedents and noting potential retirement implications.
Both the transfer order of the petitioner and respondent No.5 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3694 of 2012
==============================================
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17647 of 2012
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
Patna High Court MJC No.3694 of 2012 (6) dt.26-09-2012
2 / 3
Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Deputy Secretary To Govt., Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna 3. Jageshwar Prasad Son Of Harish Chandra Dev Prasad At Present Posted At Executive Engineer, Minor Water Resources Division, Jhajha, District Jamui .... .... Respondents ============================================== Appearance : (In MJC No.3694 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vindhyachal Singh, Advocate. Dr. Anshuman, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Gautam Bose Aag-8 Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, AC to AAG-8 For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Tuhin Shankar, Advocate. (In CWJC No.17647 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vindhyachal Singh, Advocate Mr. Mr. Satya Prakash, For the Respondent/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, AAG-2 Mr. Gautam Bose Aag-8 Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, AC to AAG-8 Mr. Tuhin Shankar, Advocate.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA VERMA
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court MJC No.3694 of 2012 (6) dt.26-09-2012
3 / 3
orders i.e. transfer order of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 are hereby quashed.
Learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. D.K. Singh and Mr. Gautam Bose very emphatically submitted that the provisions contained in the policy are not statutory and discretionary relying on Supreme Court Judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sri S.S. Kourav & Ors. reported in 1995(2) All India Services Law Journal page-109 and also relied in the case of Anant Bihari Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Others. reported in 1989 PLJR 608.
Thus, it is open for the Government to pass a fresh order in accordance with the policy as well as considering the fact that one of the transferee i.e. petitioner is to retire in March, 2013, in the light of Division Bench judgment dated 23.11.2011 passed in L.P.A. No. 1654 of 2011 of this Court.
Accordingly, the Contempt Petition and Writ Petition are hereby disposed of.
(Prakash Chandra Verma, J)
Mkr./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether transfer orders of petitioner and respondent No.5 are liable to be quashed due to disputed facts regarding misrepresentation and violation of transfer policy.
Whether the government is empowered to pass fresh transfer orders despite the controversy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sri S.S. Kourav & Ors.Relied on¶25
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sri S.S. Kourav & Ors. reported in 1995(2) All India Services Law Journal page-109
Anant Bihari Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Others.Relied on¶25
Anant Bihari Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Others. reported in 1989 PLJR 608
Kamal Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar
Dr. Deepak Prasad
Prakash Chandra Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
