- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, department of Animal Husbandry & Fishery and the Union of India. Though the respondent No. 3 is represented through their Counsel but no one appears on their behalf today. Private respondent appears to have been noticed by order dated 5.11.2014 and as per the Office report notice upon him has been shown to be validly served through 'Dasti' in support of which a supplementary-affidavit has also been filed. However no one has entered appearance on behalf of the private respondent. Petitioner, who was posted as Inspector under Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (S.P.C.A.) has been transferred by the impugned order at Annexure-4 dated 2.6.2014 issued under the signature of Chairman, S.P.C.A., Jharkhand, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, respondent No. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order mainly on two grounds:-- (i) that the order of transfer is punitive in nature without any opportunity to represent or determination of his guilt for the allegation made. (ii) that it was without jurisdiction as the Chairman, S.P.C.A., Jharkhand is no longer the authority to effect such transfer.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order petitioner has been transferred from Godda to the S.P.C.A. Headquarter at Ranchi. The content of the impugned order shows that it is based upon serious allegation that he was in connivance with the persons involved in illegal trafficking of animal and had indulged in extracting gratification from such element. He has also not reported such instance to the local police and his conduct is suspicious. The Superintendent of Police, Godda has also conveyed that the conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming and he should be transferred to some other place. However, no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to respond to such serious allegations. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the affidavit of respondent No. 3, though it is stated that show-cause notice was issued on 15.4.2014 and that the petitioner did not chose to reply but the notice at Annexure-D does not show that the said letter was ever served upon him. Therefore, the impugned order is punitive in nature without giving him any opportunity to respond. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies on Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rule, 2001 framed in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 38(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Government of Jharkhand has notified constitution of Committees in respective Districts through notification dated 1.6.2011 vide memo No. 578 issued by the Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department, Government of Jharkhand. According to learned Counsel for petitioner by the said notification administrative control over the S.P.C.A., Jharkhand is conferred upon the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, which is empowered to take action against such Inspectors. He has also referred to para 8 of his reply that Animal Welfare Board of India vide its letter dated 2.8.2002 has revoked the recognition granted to S.P.C.A., Jharkhand. Therefore, the Chairman, S.P.C.A., Jharkhand does not have any jurisdiction to issue any order of transfer of a person holding the post of Inspector like the petitioner. The order, also therefore, being without jurisdiction needs to be quashed. He has referred to the response of the Department of Animal Husbandry brought on record through their counter-affidavit.
(3.) It appears that on the earlier date the respondent No. 3 who had filed their counter-affidavit had also brought to the notice of the Court that another person, respondent No. 8 herein has thereafter been posted in place of the petitioner vide order dated 2.7.2014 and has also joined at Godda on 7.7.2014.;