Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed the judgment/order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.1058/2018 & MP No.01/2018 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein (writ petitioner before Writ Court).
(2.) In the memo of appeal, it has been stated that the appellant who has been working as Tehsil Supply Officer was transferred on 14.02.2018 from Marmat to Paddar. The said order later on was kept in abeyance. Private respondent No.4 was suspended on complaints basis on 19.02.2018. The appellant was again transferred to Kishtwar on 20.02.2018. Appellant joined his new place of posting at Kishtwar. Again to accommodate the private respondent who was suspended on complaints, appellant has been transferred from Kishtwar to Nagseni and posted private respondent at the place of appellant by mala fide exercise of power and in complete violation of Transfer Policy in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The frequent transfer of the appellant is mala fide, illegal and arbitrary exercise of powers by respondent No.2 and is not in the interest of administration but to adjust the private respondent. The appellant filed the writ petition against order No. DFCS&CAJ of 2018 dated 25.05.2018, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment/order herein, as such the instant LPA.
(3.) Appellant is aggrieved of the impugned judgment and challenges the same inter alia amongst others on the following grounds:- a. That the appellant had been first transferred on 14.02.2018 from Marmat to Padder. The said order had been kept in abeyance. Respondent No.4 had been placed under suspension on 19.02.2018, on the basis of a complaint. Appellant was again transferred to Kishtwar on 20.02.2018. In order to accommodate respondent No.4, by colourable exercise of power of transfer, appellant had been ordered to be transferred, yet, again under the impugned order before the Writ Court dated 25.05.2018 to Nagseni. It was thus a case, before the Hon'ble Writ Court, that, the order of transfer of the appellant, had been issued by arbitrary use of power of transfer to accommodate respondent No.4. Once the Hon'ble Writ Court had recorded or had reached satisfaction, that, respondent No.2 should not have ordinarily posted respondent No.4 as Incharge TSO Kishtwar, the Hon'ble Writ Court in law, could not have refused appellant his right to approach the Writ Court with grievance against his transfer order as the same was vitiated by arbitrariness which is anathema to the concept of equality and fair play. b. That once the Hon'ble Writ Court had also in impugned order, practically directed, that the Hon'ble Court did not approve the posting of respondent No.4 as incharge TSO Kishtwar, it had practically accepted that once the posting of respondent No.4 as incharge TSO Kishtwar was not approved, the posting of appellant as TSO Kishtwar could not have been allowed to be affected under the same very order, under which respondent No.4 had been posted as TSO Kishtwar and action which was not been approved by the Hon'ble Writ Court. While the Hon'ble Writ Court had itself made the order of transfer justiciable, even if, related to posting of respondent No.4, there could be no selective approach, inasmuch as, refusing interference to same order so far as appellant was concerned on the ground of justiciability. c. That while appellant was substantively holding the post of Tehsil Supply Officer, he was shown as Incharge Tehsil Supply Officer. The Hon'ble Writ Court had directed almost an enquiry, as to how the same had happened in the impugned order. Appellant as he had shown and as had been accepted by the Hon'ble Writ Court that impugned order of transfer dated 25.05.2018 was vitiated by mala fides at law, inasmuch as it being arbitrary had been accepted by the Hon'ble Writ Court and thus appellant's right of equality and fair play have been infringed as was guaranteed to him under Article 14, refusing interference and dismissing the writ petition at the threshold was against the interest of justice. d. That the Hon'ble Writ Court wrongly recorded in the impugned order that appellant had not on his own joined at Padder. The finding is contrary to record and was never a case of the appellant. Instead the appellant had pleaded at the hearing that while he had reported for joining but was not allowed as the order had been kept under abeyance. On this ground as well the impugned order is liable to be quashed.;