BISHESHWAR SINGH Vs. A G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order rejecting a prayer made by the petitioner to serve interrogatories on defendant No. ] and to produce documents in his custody.

(2.) The petitioner is a Divisional Accountant in the Public Works Division at Monghyr. An order has been passed transferring him to the Drainage Investigation Division of the Kosi Project at Ban-makhi in the district of Purnea. The petitioner's grievance is that he is a senior officer and officers like him are posted to a 'heavy division'; in other words, where the work is heavy and juniors in service are posted in light division.' Further his case is that all senior accountants are posted in proper places and the petitioner has been singled out for a different treatment. According to him, he was posted so far at places which were not good from different points of view and the present order of transfer is malicious and without jurisdiction. It is also his case that the transfer order was passed by the Assistant Accountant General, who had no jurisdiction to do so, the proper authority in this respect being the Deputy Accountant General. With these allegations, he filed Title Suit No. 116 of 1972 in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Monghyr for a declaration that the order of transfer aforesaid is without jurisdiction, unjust, discriminatory, punitive, arbitrary, an act of victimisation and violative of the principle of natural justice. He also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking any step towards the implementation of the order of transfer.

(3.) During the course of the suit, the petitioner prayed for an ad interim injunction which was granted. The defendants appeared and the matter relating to injunction was to be heard. Meanwhile the petitioner filed two applications before the court; one for serving interrogatories and the other for production of certain documents for the purpose of the hearing of the injunction matter. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the documents and the interrogatories were not necessary for the disposal of the matter relating to injunction and he rejected the prayer. Hence this application.