JANAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 4.10.2006 (P-3) transferring the petitioner from Hathin to Nuh in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer as Gram Sachiv. The petitioner has earlier worked from 1983 to 2003 as Gram Sachiv at Hathin and thereafter he was transferred from Hathin to Hodal. He was ordered to be transferred on 29.6.2006 (P-1) from Hathin to Nuh, which transfer order was cancelled on 1.8.2006 (P-2).

(2.) However, the order dated 29.6.2006 (P-1) has been restored by the impugned order dated 4.10.2006 (P-3). The petitioner has levelled allegation of mala fide against respondent No. 3 Shri Harsh Kumar, M.L.A. representing Hathin Constituency in the Assembly.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner for one reason or the other wants to continue at Hathin. When he was transferred by order dated 29.6.2006 (P-1), the same was cancelled on 1.8.2006 (P-2). But the respondents have restored back the order dated 29.6.2006 (P-1) by passing the impugned order dated 4.10.2006 (P-3). The impugned order appears to have been passed wholly in public interest as the petitioner has worked at Hathin for more than 20 years. In so far as the allegations of mala fide levelled against respondent No. 3 who is an M.L.A., are concerned, we are not impressed because no connection has been established between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The only allegation is that respondent No. 3 entertains a doubt that the petitioner is not his supporter. Such an allegation is absolutely vague and cannot constitute the basis to record a finding that respondent No. 3 entertains any mala fide against the petitioner. The allegations of mala fide are required to be elaborated by connecting the respondent with the petitioner substantially so as to constitute a basis for passing any administrative order as has been pointed out by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. Dismissed.