Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri R.D. Shahi learned standing counsel and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition, the order dated 4.10.2011 (Annexure -1) has been challenged by the petitioner so far it transfer the petitioner to Mahoba. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner while working as Food Inspector in District placed under suspension by order dated 8.4.2011. On 19.4.2011 a charge -sheet dated 8.4.2011 has been served on him thereafter Inquiry Officer appointed to conduct the domestic inquiry in the matter in question. On 29.4.2011, petitioner submitted his reply.
(2.) INQUIRY Officer submitted inquiry report on 17.6.2011 to the punishing authority on the basis of the same, impugned order dated 4.10.2011 (Annexure -1) has been passed by O.P. No. 2 imposing the punishments mentioned therein as well as transferring the petitioner to District Mahoba. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the Impugned order submits that the impugned order dated 4.10.2011 (Annexure -1) passed by O.P. No. 2 is illegal and arbitrary as the same has been passed by way of punishment against the petitioner. He further submits that O.P. No. 2 is not a competent authority to pass the Impugned order in view of the Rule 2 (b) of the U.P.P.F.A. Act, hence liable to be set aside.
(3.) SRI R.D. Shahi, learned standing counsel, on the basis of the record available with him does not dispute the fact that the impugned order of transfer has been passed in the incidence in which the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 8.4.2011 but he submits that the punishing authority after approval from the higher authority, has taken a decision to transfer the petitioner and passed the order dated 4.10.2011, hence there is no malice on the part of opposite party No. 2 or transferring the petitioner by the order in question to Mahoba.;