1. Heard Sri Sanjay Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. Vide impugned order dated 25.2.2021, the petitioner, while holding the post of Chaukidar in Civil Police, has been transferred from District Lucknow to District Moradabad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Class-IV employee and in case, he is transferred to District Moradabad, his entire family will suffer great irreparable loss and injury. He further submits that the question in regard to the transfer of a Class-IV employee was duly considered in the case of Bhagwan Verma Vs. Board of High School and Intermediate Education reported in 2002 (20) LCD 1467, wherein this Court has deprecated the transfer of a Class-IV employee to such a long distance. In the light of the observation made in the aforesaid judgment, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of relief in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the controversy in regard to the transfer of a Class-IV employee has already been considered by this Court in the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that due to misbehaviour with the officers in denying the compliance of the direction issued by them, the order of transfer has been passed on administrative grounds.
5. I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. To resolve the controversy, paragraph 9 of the judgment in the case of Bhagwan Verma (Supra) is quoted below :-
"9. I do not agree with the contention of the respondents that it is a simple order of transfer and not a punitive order. From the language used in the impugned order of transfer, it is evident that the transfer of the petitioner is punitive. The impugned order of transfer was passed without holding a preliminary enquiry and the petitioner has been transferred on the basis of bald and sweeping allegations. There is force in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on the basis of complaints, levelling charges of habitual absentism against him without even verifying the facts. In any case, it is not proper to transfer a Class IV employee to a distant place as this would result in economic death of the lowly paid employee. A lowly paid employee cannot be expected to maintain himself and his family at two places. If according to the respondents, the petitioner has committed any misconduct, they are free to take necessary action against him but cannot transfer him out in punitive manner in the garbs of transfer simpliciter. The Impugned order of transfer dated 4.12.2000, is not so inocuous as suggested by the standing counsel."
7. On perusal of the above paragraph, it is evident that it has been held that transfer of a Class-IV employee should not be made at such a long distance. It is also reflected that in case there was some complaint against the petitioner in regard to insubordination, the authority would have initiated proceeding, as provided under the rules. The punishment by way of transfer cannot be awarded to the petitioner without holding a proper enquiry in accordance with the rules.
8. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner has substance and the impugned order, in view of the reasons narrated above, is liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.2.2021 is hereby set aside.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Gautam