- (1.) THE petitioner is a Girdawar Qanoongo on the establish of Revenue Department and has been transferred by respondent NO. 2 from Pahalgam to Anantnag vide order No. 534 -36/Estt dated 08/07/1998 and this order is impugned through this writ petition on the grounds that the order impugned has been passed on the basis of undisclosed public complaints and is in the nature of punishment and not in the interest of administration, besides, a malafide exercise of power. It is further contended that the order impugned is without jurisdiction.
(2.) THE respondents have filed reply to the admissibility of the writ petition which is supported by an affidavit of respondent No.2. In the reply it is pleaded that the petitioner has functioned as Patwari Halqa Pahalgam in the first instance for about more than two and a half years w.e.f., 14.10.1981 to 23.05.1984 and that in the year 1984 the Patwari record gutted in suspicious circumstances and the petitioner was succeeded by one Shri Makhan Lal who reconstructed the record and worked as Patwari Halqa Pahalgam till he migrated from the valley in the year 1990 and after his migration the petitioner again took over as Patwari Pahalgam and continued again for a period of more than six years w.e.f, 13.08.1990 to 7.11,1996. He was promoted to the post of Girdawar in the year 1996 but was continued to be Incharge Patwari Halqa Pahalgam from 8.11.1996 to 11.12.1996. The petitioner was adjusted against the post of Additional Girdawar in Tehsil Office Pahalgam when the post had become available due to transfer of one Shri Krishen Singh, but his continuation as Incharge Patwari Halqa Pahalgam was not interrupted. It is further stated in the reply that in the year 1997, people of Pahalgam registered their protest with the Divisional Commissioner against the prolonged posting of the petitioner and a communication was issued by the Divisional Commissioner to transfer the petitioner from Pahalgam vide communication bearing No.54 -Ptw -Esstt dated 13.10.1997 and in the month of April, 1998 the Additional Deputy Commissioner had gone on official tour to Anantnag who was approached by the people of Pahalgam and was told that the revenue records have been tampered with by the petitioner, consequent upon which, a report was called from Naib Tehsildar Pahalgam who substantiated the allegations through his written report which stands forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner Anantnag Vide No,172 -Estt dated 12.05.1998 for conducting an enquiry into the matter. The respondents have given the details of the allegations through written reply to submit that the petitioner has played havoc with revenue record and has misused and abused his official capacity and has resorted to illegal and fraudulent entries in the revenue record, so much so, the State has been constrained to pay compensation even for the land which belongs to the State, specific instance of mistrust have been detailed in the reply. A specific averment is made in the reply that the petitioner has been transferred from Tehsil Pahalgam to the Tehsil he belongs viz., Anantnag and the transfer has been made because inquiry has been initiated into the matter. It is also averred that the petitioner has withheld the record with him and is bent upon to defeat and frustrate the preliminary enquiry, which stands initiated against him.
(3.) IN this writ petition, it is only the order of transfer validity of which is being scrutinized by the court, therefore, I refrain form expressing any opinion about the alleged bungling attributed to the petitioner, but the reasons which have prompted the respondent No. 2 to transfer the petitioner have to be looked into in the backdrop of averments made by the respondent in the reply and the allegations disclosed by the respondents undoubtedly do call for an affective enquiry, that too expeditiously. The petitioners contention that his transfer has been made because of communication of respondent No. l is not justifiable because had the respondent No. 2 chosen to act upon the direction of the respondent No. l, the petitioner would have been transferred in the month of October, 1997 itself which was not done which depicts that the Divisional Commissioner s direction was not carried out and petitioners transfer cannot be said to have been made on the direction of Divisional commissioner. The reply of the respondents is not wanting in this respect and establishes the fact that the transfer of the petitioner has been made because of pendency of inquiry and these facts unfold the fallacy of petitioners contention that his transfer has been made on undisclosed complaints.;