Judgment:
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.
1. The petitioner came to this Court for commanding the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allow him to work as Pharmasisl in the Hospital in question and payment of salary with a contention that he had been transferred by an order dated 21.7.95 from Chandpur/Pilibhit to Mau. The said transfer order at Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that the same was a mass transfer order wherein the petitioner's name is at serial No. 39. The petitioner contended that accordingly he handed over charge at Pilibhit and was relieved therefrom on 28.9.95 and he submitted his joining report at Mau on 4.10.95. It has been alleged in the writ petition that although the post was lying vacant there at Mau, the respondent did not allow the petitioner to work.
2. As in the aforesaid writ petition on 18.10.95, no interim order was passed and the respondents were granted time to file counter-affidavit, on 6.2.96 when the respondents did not file counter-affidavit, the matter was considered and interim order was passed directing the respondent No. 3 to permit the petitioner to join the place to which he was transferred in pursuance of Order dated 21.7.95.
3. The matter thereafter came for consideration and on the basis of facts stated in the counter-affidavit by order dated 7.1.97, the interim order dated 6.2.1996 was vacated on a finding that the petitioner made false averments as regard to the vacancy in the post of Pharmasist at Mau. The petitioner preferred an appeal, being Special Appeal No. 37/97 against the aforesaid order dated 7.1.97 and the said appeal was dismissed on 21.7.97 in terms of the observation made by the Division Bench while disposing of the appeal, the matter came for final hearing.
4. The respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3 filed counter-affidavit. The impleaded respondent No. 4 filed a separate counter-affidavit. The petitioner filed his rejoinder-affidavit and he has also filed supplementary rejoinder-affidavit after disposal of the appeal to which the respondents filed supplementary counter-affidavit. The petitioner filed second supplementary rejoinder-affidavit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
6. At the initial stage, the petitioner filed the writ petition making only a contention that inspite of his transfer order to Mau and in terms thereof he was relieved from his earlier place of posting, the petitioner was not allowed to work although he submitted joining report at Mau on 4.10.95 and the allegation of the petitioner was categorical at that stage that the post of Pharmasist at the Hospital at Mau was lying vacant. In the counter-affidavit, respondent Nos, 1, 2 and 3 contended that before the mass transfer by order dated 21.7.95, a transfer order dated 14.7.95 had been passed whereby the respondent No. 4 was, transferred to Mau from Ballia along with respective transfers of other three persons and a copy of the said transfer order dated 14.7.95 had been annexed as Annexure-1 to the said counter-affidavit. It has also been stated in the saidaffidavit that the respondent No. 4 joined on 22.7.95 and in support thereof document has been annexed showing handing over of charge on 22.7.1995. The respondent No. 4 also took the same stand in his counter-affidavit and he also annexed a photo copy of the transfer order dated 14.7.95. Contentions were made that the charge of the office of the Pharmasist at Hospital at Mau was handed over to the respondent No. 4 on 19.7.95 and in support thereof letter dated 12.10.1995 at Annexure-2 has been annexed showing handing over of charge on 19.7.95.
7. At the subsequent stage, the petitioner disclosed the facts contending that the transfer order dated 14.7.95 was a forged document. It has been further disclosed that Shri Naraln Ram who was shown in the transfer order dated 14.7.95 as transferred from Hospital at Mau to Basudeva at Ballia has also been shown at Serial No. 100 in the transfer order dated 21.7.95 showing his transfer order from Mau to Chandpur/Pillbhit. It has been contended that in fact the said Shri Narain Ram was shown as the person with whom the petitioner's transfer was related to in the transfer order dated 21.7.95. The same Shri Naraln Ram's transfer had been shown as the related transfer in respect of respondent No. 4. It is stated that the transfer order dated 14.7.95 is a forged document and was concocted for the purpose of showing respondent No. 4 at Mau so that the petitioner does not join the said Hospital at Mau. It has also been contended that only seven days before the mass transfer the transfer of four persons involving the same places was not possible and in any event had there been such a transfer order dated 14.7.95 the said Shri Narain Ram and the petitioner would have been correctly shown in the said mass transfer which takes place after considering all cases in detail.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the order effecting mass transfer is bearing a Serial No. 10514 but the alleged earlier transfer order dated 14.7.95 bears a Serial No. 19206, i.e., a subsequent number which is not possible. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a photostat copy of the despatch register showing that the said document No. 192206 did not relate to the said transfer and in support of such contention a photostat copy annexed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit has been relied on showing the same was addressed to the Chief Secretary and related to the different persons.
9. On behalf of the respondents, the contention of the petitioner has been denied. Specific denial has been made to the allegation that the transfer order dated 14.7.95 was a forged document. Denial was also made in respect of the numbering of the two transfer orders and the correctness of the register a photostat copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary-affidavit.
10. After considering the respective contentions of the parties, I find that the contentions of the respondents are not acceptable. The respondents have failed to explain in any manner as to why the number of earlier transfer order dated 14.7.95 is subsequent to the number of mass transfer order of a subsequent date when admittedly both transfer orders were issued from the same Directorate. Moreover, seven days before such order effecting mass transfer, a separate order of transfer of four persons covering posts included in mass transfer was allegedly affected and neither any explanation for such conduct of the respondents authority has been made available nor any circumstances shown for accepting the same as true. With regard to the despatch register also, though the respondents have denied allegations of petitioner in the counter-affidavit but neither any extract of appropriate register has been annexed to the said supplementary counter-affidavit nor any records have been produced for the purpose of effectively contradicting the contentions of the petitioner. Inspite of repeated directions of the Court at various stages, the respondents have failed to produce original order dated 14.7.1995. In such circumstances, the contentions of the respondents are not believable.
11. Moreover with regard to joining date of the respondent No. 4 at Mau. version of the respondents are contradictory, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in their counter-affidavit claimed 22.7.1995 as date of joining and the respondent No. 4 in his affidavit claimed 19.7.1995 as the date of Joining. Both statements have been supported by documents.
12. In view of the aforesaid findings. 1 am of the opinion that the petitioner after transfer by order dated 21.7.95 was wrongly disallowed from Joining at the Hospital at Mau on the post of Fharmasist therein and at that point of time, the said post was lying vacant. The transfer order dated 14.7.95 appears to have been created subsequently for justifying the conduct of the respondents preventing the petitioner from joining the Hospital at Mau.
13. But during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents get the benefit of such wrongful activities and got the Interim order vacated on such allegations and thus reaped the benefit of such wrongful acts. While vacating the interim order, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to relieve the petitioner forthwith and for Issuance of notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for committing contempt of Court under the provision Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the second supplementary rejoinder-affidavit affirmed on 7.8.1997. the petitioner has stated that the petitioner accordingly appeared and the learned Judge directed the petitioner's counsel to give undertaking that the petitioner would not join his duty anywhere during pendency of the writ petition and, therefore, the petitioner did not Join anywhere. The respondents have not denied the same on oath.
14. As the transfer orders considered herein were passed long back, there is no requirement of quashing them. But Interim order was vacated on production of materials which have been herein found not believable and. therefore, persons responsible for the such conduct are required to be dealt with in appropriate manner departmentally.
15. In view of the aforesaid findings, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to pass appropriate order of posting of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and to pay the petitioner salary within one month from the date of the production of a certified copy of this Judgment treating the petitioner on duty till his order of posting is made.
16. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the respondent No. 1 to enable him to find out the persons in the department responsible for such illegalities and to take appropriate action against such persons found so responsible.