R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner, who claims to be Junior Engineer, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of his transfer dated 30-6-1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions, viz. (i) The order of the transfer has been passed on the basis of complaint, and (ii) The transfer order has been passed in violation of guidelines issued by the Government, inasmuch as the petitioner, who is office-bearer of an Association, has been transferred, although according to the said guidelines an office-bearer of an Association cannot be transferred for a period of two years. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel.
(2.) The impugned order does not mention that the transfer has been made on the basis of complaint. Rather it has specifically been mentioned therein that the petitioner has been transferred in public interest. Merely because some complaints have also been made against the petitioner it cannot be presumed that the complaint was the basis of transfer. Even on merit the first submission has got to be rejected. From perusal of the letter dated 23-6-1993 of the Assistant Engineer, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it appears that he has requested the Superintending Engineer to transfer the petitioner to some other place as there are complaints against him. Submission of the learned counsel is that it is on the basis of above complaint that the transfer order has been passed on June 30,1993.
(3.) There is no prohibition against transfer on the basis of complaints. If from the perusal of the complaint it appears to the authorities that in order to have smooth working in the office, prompt administrative action is required to save the situation from further deterioration, it is open to them to transfer the concerned employee so as to defuse the situation. Decisions of Single Judge of this Court in Pradip Goyal v. Regional Manager, 1992 I CLR 577 (All.) and that of a Division Bench in State of U. P. v. Shesh Mani Tripathi, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1303 which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be of any help to him, inasmuch as Single Judge decision has been over ruled in Special Appeal and aforesaid decision in the case of Shesh Mani Tripathi (supra) has been over-ruled by Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Shesh Mani Tripathi, C.A.No. 1856 of 1992 decided on 22-4-1992 . Supreme Court in the above case, while overruling the Division Bench decision of this court, has laid down as under: "On the report of assault there was, as stated in the counter, consideration resentment and hostility amongst the members of the staff which necessitated prompt administrative action to save the situation from further deterioration. The Division Bench of the High Court does not state that the averments in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit are not correct. If such was the situation, one of the remedies was to transfer the concerned officer so that the situation can be defused. It is not that the only solution is to institute an inquiry. An inquiry would take some time but where immediate and prompt action is required one of the remedies is transfer. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the transfer is not for administrative reasons." Although in the letter dated June 23, 1993 of the Assistant Engineer reference has been made to the complaints against the petitioner which are lying with the Chief Revenue Officer but the contents of those complaints have neither been disclosed in the above letter nor has the petitioner stated in his writ petition that those complaints are frivolous. As the petitioner has been transferred it can be presumed that the complaint contains material so as to justify his transfer.;