PRANJAL PANGGING S/O PURNESWAR PANGGING Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP BY ITS COMM AND SECY
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Pranjal Pangging S/O Purneswar Pangging
State Of Assam And 4 Ors Rep By Its Comm And Secy
Click here to view full judgement.
L. S. Jamir, J. -
(1.) The petitioner joined as Inspector of Excise in the Excise Department on 01.08.2013 and was posted at Goalpara (S). By a notification dated 20.09.2017, the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 was cross transferred whereby the petitioner, who was posted at Goalpara (S) was transferred to Lakhimpur (S) vice the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, by order dated 03.10.2017, the petitioner was released w.e.f. 03.10.2017 to enable him to join his new place of posting by the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara. The petitioner, thereafter, joined as Inspector of Excise, Lakhimpur on 06.10.2017. The respondent No. 5 was also released on 11.10.2017 by release order dated, 11.10.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. In the meantime, the respondents issued another notification dated, 17.10.2017 staying the earlier transfer order effected by the notification dated, 20.09.2017. By another notification dated, 15.11.2017 issued by the Excise Department, Government of Assam, the respondent No. 5 was allowed to continue as Inspector of Excise, Lakhimpur (Sadar) Circle with immediate effect and in partial modification of the notification dated 20.09.2017, the petitioner was posted as Inspector of Excise against the vacant post at Bihpuria Excise Circle, Lakhimpur District with immediate effect. Being aggrieved with the notifications dated 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017, the petitioner is before this court.
(2.) Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department and Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.
(3.) Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notification dated, 17.10.2017 staying the earlier transfer effected by the notification dated, 20.09.2017 was done on the interference of the Member of Parliament (M.P.) inorder to accommodate the respondent No. 5 in his original place of posting. The notification dated, 15.11.2017 was also issued in arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents to accommodate the respondent No. 5 on the interference of the M.P. in his original place of posting i.e., Lakhimpur. The very interference of the M.P., more particularly when he is not from the constituency, would clearly indicate that the impugned notifications dated, 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 were not issued in public interest and the same were issued with malafide intention. The respondent No. 5 has brought in political influence for retaining him at Lakhimpur (Sadar) which is in violation of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notification dated, 17.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 requires interference. She has also placed reliance in the case of Sunit Kumar Bardoloi Vrs. State of Assam, 2010 2 GauLT 786 as well as in judgment and order dated 28.05.2015 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 1319 of 2015 (Shri Baikuntha Konch Vrs. State of Assam and Ors.).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.