Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8572 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Varsha Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ali Ausaf,Sr. Advocate Shri G. K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
The petitioner assails an order of transfer dated 14 July 2021 pursuant to which she has been posted as District Minority Welfare Officer, Sambhal. The order of transfer is challenged on the ground of mala fides with it being principally contended that the entire exercise that was undertaken was in order to accommodate the fourth respondent as the District Minority Welfare Officer, Kanpur Nagar.
Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel taking the Court through the sequence of events which preceded the passing of the impugned order firstly referred to the letter addressed by a Member of Parliament on 07 July 2019 requesting the Minister in charge to retain the fourth respondent as the District Minority Welfare Officer at Kanpur Nagar. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication, it is stated that the fourth respondent was handed over charge at Kanpur Nagar by an order of 21 January 2020. In the meanwhile, it appears that the petitioner came to be suspended on 24 December 2019. That order was assailed by the petitioner by way of Writ -A No.-19 of 2020 in which by an order dated 18 January 2020 the order of suspension was stayed by the Court. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner was reinstated and by an order of 19 February 2020 posted as the District Minority Welfare Offier at Auraiya. Even this order was assailed by the petitioner by way of Writ -A No. - 3420 of 2020 in which that order was also stayed.
However, as this Court reads the order passed on the last petition, it becomes relevant to note that the intervening and crucial event of the charge of Kanpur Nagar having been handed over to the fourth respondent while the petitioner had been placed under suspension was neither noticed nor considered. It becomes pertinent to note that the petitioner came to be suspended on allegations wholly unconnected with the dispute that is sought to be given the colour of the foundation for the impugned order of suspension.
It may be noted that the order of transfer has come to be passed by the first respondent. The writ petition does not place any material on the record nor is it otherwise established that the order of transfer or the posting of the private respondent was on account of the Department acceding to the request of the Member of Parliament. Additionally the Court notes that the letter relied upon was itself addressed to the concerned Minister and not the first respondent. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent holds a position of influence which may impede the discretion vested in the respondent No. 1.
The Court lastly notes that the letter of the Member of Parliament which has been referred to was issued on 07 July 2019 whereas the first order of transfer and posting of the fourth respondent came to be made in January 2020.
The Court thus comes to conclude that the transfer of the petitioner essentially appears to have come to be made consequent to the posting of the fourth respondent at Kanpur Nagar during the period that the petitioner was suspended. Her subsequent posting necessarily had to be made at another station. More fundamentally and as noted above, the petitioner has failed to establish with the aid of cogent evidence that the entire chain of events were set in motion on account of the letter of the Member of Parliament. In view of the aforesaid, the challenge to the order of transfer on mala fides, fails.
The petition consequently fails and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)