Om Prakash, J. - (1.) Despite the orders dated 12.10.1990 and 12.12.1990 no counter-affidavit has been filed by the standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.1990 (Annexure-'1' to the writ petition) passed by the Chief Engineer, respondent no.3, the petitioner came up to this Court to seek cancellation of the said order. It appears from perusal of the orders dated 29.1.1990 (Annexure-'2' to the writ petition) that the petitioner was accused for having committed several irregularities in his official duties and on that account the respondent no.1 directed that the petitioner be kept for five years in some no works division of the Public Works Department and in that sequel the petitioner was transferred by the order dated 7.8.1990 (Annexure-'1' to the writ petition) from Bridge Construction Division, Kanpur, to the Public Highways, Survey Division, Kanpur.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that his transfer is punitive in nature and is, therefore, violative of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity of being heard was given to him. It is urged that no punishment can be inflicted by the higher authorities without giving him an opportunity of being heard and hence the impugned transfer order is liable to be set aside. I see force in the contention of the petitioner that no transfer should be made as a measure of punishment and if there are some charges against an incumbent, then proper course is to initiate a proper enquiry against him and punish him suitably, if found guilty. Transfer, if at all necessary, can be made during the pendency of the enquiry, but not as a substantive punishment and that too without hearing the incumbent. If the impugned order is accepted. Then that would tantamount to the proposition that an incumbent could be punished without being heard. From perusal of the order dated 29.1.1990 (Annexure-'2' to the writ petition), it is manifest that the respondent no.l directed the petitioner's shifting from the Bridge Construction Division to no works division as a measure of punishment, which cast stigma to the petitioner, and if that is so, before passing the stigmatised order, an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner. In strict legal sense shifting of the petitioner from one division to another division in the Public Works Department may not be termed as a transfer, but since the order dated 29.1.1990 (Annexure-'2' to the writ petition) Carries stigma to the career of the petitioner that cannot be sustained being violative of the principles of natural justice.;