- (1.) THIS petition, by Om Prakash Singh, challenges the order of transfer dated 27. 9. 2007, by means of which he has been transferred in public interest from Bhognipur Kanpur Dehat to Divisional Forest Officers, Badaun, on his substantive post. On the same very day, another transfer order was issued transferring respondent No. 4 R. K. Gangwar, from Badaun to Bhognipur, Kanpur Dehat in place of the petitioner. Both the aforesaid orders recite that the transfer is being effected in public interest.
(2.) THE ground of challenge to the transfer order is mainly the intervention of the State Minister, Independent Charge, Sports and Youth Welfare, namely; Sri Ayodhya Prasad Pal, who vide his letter dated 25th July, 2007 and again on 3rd September, 2007, has complained against the petitioner to the Chief Minister and consequently requested for transferring him from the present place of posting i. e. Kanpur Dehat and to post one R. K. Singh, in his place. However, Sri R. K. Singh could not be posted because of earlier litigation which took place between the petitioner and R. K. Singh, in Writ Petition No. 875 (SB) of 2006, in re: Rajendra Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. and others, which was disposed of vide order dated 1. 8. 2006. In pursuance of the order dated 1. 8. 2006 the State after transferring the respondent No. 4, in Kanpur Circle office, posted the Beldar in his place at Bhognipur, Kanpur Dehat. Sri S. C. Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who is pos sessed with the record though even after seeing the same and the averments made in the counter affidavit, initially tried to impress upon the Court that the present transfer of the petitioner is not the outcome of the complaint made by the State Minister that too of another Department because the same has not been taken into account for transferring the petitioner but the matter was considered by the Committee consisted of Sri Shrikrishna, Principal Secretary, Forest, Sri K. Ravindra Nayak, Special Secretary to the Chief Minister, and Sri B. K. Patnayak, Chief Conservator of Forest and on their recommendation the transfer order was passed. But later on, after seeing paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and also the record more closely alongwith the original letter of the Minister on which notings have been made, submitted that the petitioner has been transferred because of the complaints received against him, which fact was taken into consideration by the High level Committee aforesaid and therefore, it cannot be said that the Minister's letter was not considered while taking a decision to transfer the peti tioner to Bhognipur, Kanpur Dehat. It is thus, admitted to the State that the action of transfer of the petitioner has been taken because of the complaints, a mention of which finds place in the letter of the Minister and which has been considered by the State Government through the committee constituted for the purpose. The minutes of meeting read as follows: "dinak 19. 09. 2007 Ko Bhartiya Van Sewa Evam Prantiya Van Sewa Key Live Gathit Civil Sewa Board Kee Baithak Ka Karyavrat. Baithak Mein Nimnlikhit Adhikarigan Ney Bhag Liya: 1. Sri Shrikrishna, Pramukh Sachiv, Van. 2. Sri K. Ravindra Nayak, Vishesh Sachiv, Mukhya Mantri. 3. Sri B. K. Patnayak, Pramukh Van Sanrakshak. Baithak Mein Yah Avgat Karaya Gaya Hai Ki Sri R. K. Gangwar, Up Prabhagiya Vanadhikari, Badaun Ko Is Prabhag Mein 06 Varsh Sey Adhik Ho Gain Hai, Jishkey Drashtigat Inhen Badaun Esthannatrit Kiya Jana Avashyak Hai. Isee Sandarbh Mein Yah Bhi Bataya-Gaya Ki Sri Om Prakash Singh, Up Prabhagiyavanadhikari, Bhognipur, Kanpur Dehat Van Prabhag Key Virudh Katipai Shikayaten Prapta Hueen Hain Jinkey Drashtigat Inhen Yahan Se Esthanntrit Kiya Jana Hai. Samyak Vicharoprant Civil Sewa Board Dwara Prantiya Van Sewa Key Adhikariyon Key Esthanritran/tainati Key Sambandh Mein Nimnwat Sanstuti Kee Jati Hai: Kramank Naam Vartaman Pad Prastavit Pad 1. Sri R. K. Gangwar Sahayak Van Sanrakshak, Badaun Sahayak Van Sanrakshak, Bhognipur, Kanpur Dehat. 2. Sri Om Prakash Singh Sahayak Van Sanrakshak, Bhognipur, Kanpur Dehat Sahayak Van Sanrakshak, Badaun, Van Prabhag. 3. Sri R. K. Singh Sahayak Van Sanrakshak, Sambadh Vrat Karyalaya, Van Sanrakshak Sahayak Van Sanrakshak, Farrukhabad Van Prabhag (B. K. Patnayak) (K. Ravindra Nayak) (Shrikrishna) Pramukh Van Sanrakshak Vishesh Sachiv, Mukhya Pramukh Sachiv Van. U. P. Mantri. It is apparent from the aforesaid minutes of the meeting that during the course of meeting, it was disclosed (source not mentioned) before the Commit tee that the respondent No. 4 has been staying for more than six years at Badaun and also there are alleged complaints against the petitioner which apparently prompted the Committee to make such a recommendation of inter-se transfer. Besides this remark, there is nothing in the minutes of meeting, to establish that there was any material, which was considered and could have been considered. May be that the respondent No. 4 could have been transferred from Badaun after staying there for over six years from that place to another place including the present place of posting, but such a transfer only for ousting the petitioner on the mere desire of the Minister of State, Sports and Youth Welfare is arbitrary. The transfer order having been passed on non- existent facts under the political influ ence suffers from arbitrariness besides being contrary to law.
(3.) A plea has also been raised by the State Counsel that since no notice has been issued to the respondent No. 5, therefore, the plea of malafide cannot be seen at this stage to which the petitioner has replied by saying that looking into the original record of the case as well as the pleadings of the parties including that of the State, it is a case of malice in law where the order has been passed on extraneous consideration and is contrary to law, therefore, notice need not be issued to the Minister viz the respondent No. 5 but the validity of the order can be seen in view of the aforesaid pleading of the parties. Earlier a litigation, i. e. Writ Petition No. 875 (SB) of 2006, decided on 1. 8. 2006, took place between the peti tioner and Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh. The petitioner of the said writ petition, namely; Rajendra Kumar Singh felt aggrieved by his transfer from Kanpur Dehat to Kanpur Circle, reference of which has been given above, but later on he recon ciled with his posting and the writ petition was decided accordingly on 1. 8. 2006. The petitioner asserts that as an honest officer in compliance of the direc tive issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of running of saw mills, a refer ence of which has been given by the petitioner in the writ petition, submitted a report in pursuance of which sealing orders were passed with respect to four factories including one factory namely; M/s Northern Doors Pvt. Ltd. Kanpur, as mentioned in (Annexure-6) to the writ petition. Sealing was effected sometime in the middle of the month of September 2006 in pursuance of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 1st September, 2006 in the case of T. N. Godavannu Therumulkpad v. Union of India and others.;