- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents. This petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself in view of the fact that the Stand ing Counsel has filed the counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed the rejoinder affidavit and the private respondent has appeared through his Counsel and has placed his submissions.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 9th June, 2008, whereby he has been transferred from the seat of Arms Clerk to the post of Reader in the Court of Additional Magistrate, Bulandshahar. THE petitioner contended that by an order dated 28m June, 2007, the petitioner was posted as an Arms Clerk in the Collectorate of Bulandshahar, but respondent No. 5 manipulated and got himself posted on this seat by an order dated 13m November, 2007. THEreafter, another order dated 11th January, 2008 was passed whereby the petitioner was directed to again work as an Arms Clerk and now, by the impugned order, the petitioner has again been transferred at the instance of respondent No. 5 for ve?ted reasons a when serious allegations are levelled against respondent No. 5 and an enquiry has been initiated against him by an order dated 9. 4. 2008, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. THE petitioner also urged that respon dent No. 5 had committed various irregularities while working as an Arms Clerk earlier and was issued a punishment order in the year 1991. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that he was working to the satisfaction of the authorities and that there was no complaint against him from any quarters and that the transfer of the petitioner from one seat to another seat was done for vested reasons at the behest of respondent No. 5. On these allegations, the Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions and if necessary, file a short counter affidavit. In the short counter affidavit, the authorities have submitted that the petitioner had manipulated certain documents by using whitener fluid and manipulated the arms record kept in the Collect orate and that a Committee has been constituted to enquire into the matter and that is why the petitioner has been shifted from the said seat in public interest and also on administrative grounds. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the authorities have contended that the punishment awarded to respondent No. 5 in the year 1991 was set aside by the Appellate Authority in the year 1994 and that there was no charge against the said respondent nor any inquiry has been initiated against respondent No. 5 as on date. The learned Standing Counsel has specifically contended that Annexure-5 to the writ petition which is a letter issued by the petitioner on which an endorsement has been made apparently by the Additional Divisional Magistrate is not on the record of the Collect orate and that the said document appears to have been fabricated. This is a serious allegation and requires investigation.
(3.) SRI Vinod Sinha, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 has specifically contended that he has unnecessarily been dragged in this controversy and that a wrong impression against him has been portrayed by the petitioner before this Court and submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner in the year 1991 had been set aside. The learned Counsel further submitted that against the transfer order dated 13th November, 2007, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 58211 of 2007 which was dismissed summarily by an order dated 27th November, 2007. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the first place, the impugned order is not a transfer order and is only an allocation of the work issued by the authority from one seat to another seat for which the petitioner cannot be aggrieved and cannot contend any arbitrariness. If the petitioner is required to work as a Government employee, he must obey the orders of the authorities. It is not his choice nor his right to demand that he should be allowed to work on a particular seat. From the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that an attempt was made on his behalf earlier to stay on this post of an Arms Clerk, when he approached the writ Court and the same was dismissed summarily by an order dated 27thnovember, 2007. Another attempt has been made by the same petitioner through this writ petition. From the averments made by the respondents in their counter affidavit, it is clear that a serious charge of interpolation of records has been levelled against the petitioner and subsequently, the authority was justified in public interest as well as on administrative grounds to remove the petitioner from that particular seat of the post of Arms Clerk. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fact, do not find any error in the impugned order and the writ petition is dismissed summarily.;