PRATAP NARAIN SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri C.B.Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 23.10.2013, by which he has been transferred from Prantiya Khand, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Sant Kabir Nagar to Staff Officer, Bareilly Vratt, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Bareilly.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that he has been transferred at the behest of the Minister of Public Works Department on the ground that he was not able to satisfy some of the worker of the ruling party. The declaration of his transfer has also been made in a public meeting. The publication in the newspaper, namely, "Hindustan" has been made in this regard, which is annexed as annexure -3 to the writ petition. He submitted that the Minister had come to address the public meeting and not in the inspection and no discrepancy has been found in the inspection. The code of conduct does not permit any officer to make any arrangement of the public meeting of any Minister or any political party and to remain present in such meeting. The petitioner is a sincere officer and no finger has yet been raised on his integrity and performance of work. However, he submitted that the reasons given in the order dated 13.11.2013 for his transfer is incorrect and unjustified. He further submitted that impugned transfer order is contrary to Government Transfer Policy for the year 2013 -14, inasmuch as before issuing the transfer order, approval has not been taken from Hon'ble Chief Minister, since the petitioner is a Class I officer. Sri C.B.Yadav, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the transfer has not been made at the behest of the Minister. In the newspaper publication, the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned. The petitioner has been transferred for the reasons stated in the order dated 13.11.2013. So far as transfer policy is concerned, the requisite procedure has been followed and is in consonance of business rules. The petitioner has not been transferred in isolation but along with the petitioner, number of other officers have been transferred. Therefore, it can not be said that the petitioner has been singled out and his transfer is based on malafide. The record relating to the transfer has been produced before the Court to demonstrate that the transfer of 19 Executive Engineers have been proposed including the petitioner vide proposal dated 23.10.2013 and such proposal has been approved by the Principal Secretary, Lok Nirman Vibhag, the other officers and also by the concerned Minister on 23.10.2013 and a note has also been made to take the approval from Hon'ble Chief Minister. The approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister has been granted on 24.11.2013, therefore, the proper procedure has been followed.