Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Sept 2021WPSB/364/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging a transfer order from Haridwar to Dharchula. The Court held that since a complaint of negligence was lodged and disciplinary proceedings were proposed, the transfer was not casual. The constitutional court should not interfere minimally in transfer orders on administrative grounds.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; transfer order upheld.

Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 2^nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶8

WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 364 of 2021

¶9

2^nd September, 2021

¶10

Between:

¶11

Dinesh Kumar Singh .....Petitioner

¶12

and

¶13

State of Uttarakhand and others. …....Respondents

¶14

Counsel	for	the	: Mr.	V.B.S. Negi,	learned
petitioner.			Sen Mr.	ior Advocate ass Ankush Negi, Adv	isted by ocate.
Counsel	for	the	: Mr.	B.S. Parihar,	learned
State.			Sta	nding Counsel.

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

JUDGEMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

¶17

Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.08.2021

¶18

passed by Secretary, Irrigation Department, Dehradun,

¶19

whereby he has been transferred from Haridwar to Dharchula, Pithoragarh.

¶20

In para 4 of the writ petition, petitioner has admitted that he has been posted in and around District Haridwar for most part of his service career.

¶21

By an order dated 01.09.2021, instructions were sought from the State Counsel. On instructions, learned Standing Counsel for the State has pointed out that Kumbh Mela Adhikari had made a complaint against the petitioner of negligence in official duties and he further apprised us that disciplinary enquiry was proposed against him.

¶22

Transfer is an incidence of service and employer is the best judge regarding choice of place where a government servant is to be posted. Thus interference in transfer order by constitutional Court should be minimal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that transfer on administrative ground cannot be made casually or in a routine manner and such transfer can be made only when there is a complaint of serious misconduct. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Section 18(4) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, which reads as under:-

¶24

¶25

“Section 18(4). On enquiry, on the grounds of serious complaints of misconduct, misbehaviour with senior officers and lack of interest in work etc. after necessary enquiry and confirmation, transfer of such employee may be made on administrative grounds:

¶26

Provided that the transfer on administrative grounds shall not be made casually or on the basis of complaints of routine nature and in the orders of such transfer it shall be necessary to mention Administrative Grounds.”

¶27

The aforesaid provision is of no help to the petitioner. In the present case, a very Senior Officer has made a complaint against petitioner, therefore it cannot be said that petitioner has been transferred without there being any adverse material.

¶28

In view of the statement made by learned Standing Counsel that there is a complaint against the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings are also likely to be initiated against him, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner has been made casually based on a routine complaint, is unacceptable.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a full bench Judgment in Special Appeal No. 143 of 2008 titled as “Smt. Damyanti Bisht vs. State of Uttarakhand”. However, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶30

¶31

Thus, there is no scope for interference in the

¶32

matter. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

_____________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

¶34

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶35

Dt:2^nd September, 2021

¶36

Mamta/Neha

¶37

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjani Kumar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rinkan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Kumar Batla Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Singh Rana Vs Stae of Uttarakhand

Himanshu Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chandra Singh Rautela Vs State of Uttarakhand