Decided on June 12,2012

Basudeo Kushwah Appellant


BARIN GHOSH, J. - (1.) AS was directed by us on the earlier occasion, the learned counsel for the State has produced written instructions to support the administrative reason for effecting the transfer in question. In course of discharging his duties, it transpired that the petitioner has embezzled funds belonging to the State. The State went to the Commission to initiate disciplinary proceeding, which may result in termination of the services of the petitioner. The Commission refused to grant such permission. In the circumstances, a proceeding to inflict minor penalty was initiated against the petitioner. That proceeding stands concluded, where it has been ascertained that the petitioner had embezzled funds of the State. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceeding, thus initiated, has been concluded by awarding punishments as were to be given commensurate with the proved misconduct. It has been contended that, in the event, petitioner remains in the post of District Horticulture Officer, in which he was posted, he would get further opportunity to commit embezzlement and, in order to stop the same, on administrative ground, he has been transferred to the post of Junior Flower Scientist, where he will have no scope of committing any further embezzlement.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances of the case, as above, do not show, therefore, that the order impugned is a punishment order. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was posted as District Horticulture Officer, Dehradun in July, 2011. He, accordingly, submitted that, in those circumstances, it cannot be contended that the post of District Horticulture Officer, Dehradun, was such a post, where the petitioner committed the embezzlement being the subject matter of the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner was posted at Kotdwar when he committed embezzlement being the subject matter of the disciplinary proceeding. The disciplinary proceeding has been concluded on 3rd February, 2012. In the circumstances, when it is the contention that, as Junior Flower Scientist, petitioner will have no opportunity of touching any funds of the State, we are of the view that the order impugned is not interferable.
(3.) WE , accordingly, refuse to interfere with the order of transfer. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.