Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14895 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mahtab Alam And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Sanjeev Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pt. Sita Ram Vishwakarma
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner nos. 2 to 11 are members of Nagar Panchayat Manjhanpur and petitioner no. 1 is the Chairman.
Against non cooperative attitude of the Executive Officer, an unanimous resolution was passed by 2/3rd members of the Nagar Panchayat, Manjhanpur on 14.5.2018 and this resolution was sent to the Director, Local Bodies for requesting transfer of the Executive Officer.
In pursuance of the said resolution and covering letter of request, a transfer order was passed on 28.5.2018 by the Director, Local Bodies transferring the Executive Officer from Nagar Panchayat Manjhanpur Kaushambi to Rajapur Chitrakoot. However, without any reason just two days thereafter on 31.5.2018, an order of cancellation of the said transfer has been passed by the Director, Local Bodies which has been impugned in this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Rule 25(2) of the U.P. Palika Centralised Service Rules, 1966 where the Government can on the basis of resolution passed by 2/3rd majority of Nagar Palika, transferred the Executive Officer.
Learned counsel for the Executive Officer, Sri Pandit Sita Ram Vishwakarma has referred to the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Officer in this writ petition wherein the Executive Officer has brought out certain irregularities being committed in the Nagar Panchayat concerned by the petitioner no. 1.
On her representation containing details of such irregularities to the Director, Local Bodies made on 30.5.2018, a copy of which has been annexed, in the counter affidavit, the Director had passed the order dated 31.5.2018.
Sri Sanjeev Singh has said that the Director had no Authority to pass such an order of cancellation of transfer as under Rule 25(2), the views of the majority of the members of the Nagar Panchayat ought to be considered by the State respondents.
On careful examination of Rules 25(2) of the U.P. Palika Centralised Service Rules, this Court finds that the Appointing Authority i.e. the Government can make an order of transfer of the Executive Officer of any Nagar Palika, in case a resolution is passed, recommending such transfer by 2/3rd majority of the sitting members of the Nagar Panchayat. Although the resolution was passed on 14.5.2018 in terms of the Rule 25(2) no request was made to the Government which is the Appointing Authority. The covering letter sent by the petitioner no. 1 dated 15.5.2018 is addressed to the Director, Local Bodies. The Director, Local Bodies is not the Appointing Authority of a member of centralised service.
It is the Government i.e. the respondent no. 1 which alone could have passed an order of transfer looking into the request of the members of the Nagar Panchayat as aforesaid. No such request was made to the Government.
The order of Director, Local Bodies mentioning the request and transferring the Executive Officer was without jurisdiction.
The order dated 31.5.2018 does not suffer from any illegality.
The writ petition is dismissed in so far as the petitioners' first prayer regarding quashing of the cancellation order dated 31.5.2018 is concerned.
With regard to the second prayer made by the petitioners for a mandamus to be issued to the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas to look into the grievance of the petitioner, the petitioners shall make a representation along with copy of the resolution already passed by them to the Principal Secretary within a period of three weeks from today.
The Principal Secretary shall after taking into account all relevant factors and circumstances and also giving hearing to the Executive Officer, pass an appropriate order within four weeks thereafter.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Arif