Judgment:
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated April 7, 2006 (P-7) transferring the petitioner fourth time within a span of eight months. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner was promoted as District Food and Supply Officer on December 30, 2003. He served at Kaithal till the year 2005 and thereafter he was transferred to Gurgaon on August 2, 2005 (P-1). After about 40 days, the petitioner was transferred from Gurgaon to Narnaul on September 13, 2005 (P-2). After about 70 days, he was transferred from Narnaul to Faridabad (P-3) and after about 104 days, he was transferred from Faridabad to Chandigarh. The allegations of the petitioner in paras 6, 7 and 8 are that the petitioner started conducting vide ranging raids to curb rampant corruption and irregularities which were committed by the licencees of the respondent-Department. He checked, 51 Petrol pumps in the month of March 2006 alone. He also conducted raids at the Depots meant for public distribution of ration articles at subsidized rates to check the prevailing irregularities and corruption. Various criminal cases were registered against defaulting depot holders and it was found that several influential persons were running depots under the fake names of their relatives. He submitted report against 16 depot holders and recommended severe action against them. He discovered serious irregularities in three other depots and the action was recommended against them also. The petitioner also submitted a report against two L.P.G. Agencies which were causing huge financial loss to the Government and were detriment to the public at large. Similar averments have been made in para 8 of the writ petition.
2. In the written statement the aforementioned facts have not been controverted and the reply to the aforementioned para can be summed up with one sentence that it is a matter of record or that the petitioner was performing his official duty. The only defence raised is that the transfer has been made on administrative grounds in the exigency of service. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner is a litigious person and had earlier also filed a writ petition, namely, C.W.P. No. 1 1257 of 2001, decided on August 2, 2001.
3. We have repeatedly asked the learned State counsel the basic reason for transferring the petitioner at such a frequency. However, no satisfactory reply has been given by him. Accordingly, we proceed to consider the matter.
4. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned senior counsel has pointed out that the mala fide in such a transfer could easily be inferred from the frequency with which these transfers have been ordered. He has drawn our attention to the relieving order dated April 10, 2006 (R-1). He has further argued that the record shows that the transfer order was passed on April 7, 2006 (P-7) which has been received by the District Food and Supply Controller, Faridabad on April 12, 2006. However, the petitioner was relieved on April 10, 2006 (R-1), which shows a tearing hurry on the part of the respondents to relieve the petitioner as is evident from the perusal of order dated April 10, 2006 (R-1). Learned Counsel has also placed on record an order dated 7.4.2006 which is also available on record to show that the endorsement has been made to the Personal Secretary/OSD-II/C.M., Personal Secretary/ Deputy C.M. etc. A photo copy of the afore-mentioned . order has been taken on record as Mark 'A'. On the afore-mentioned document it has been argued that the claim of the respondents in the written statement that the transfer is actuated by the administrative interest or it is in the exigency of service, stands belied. According to the learned Counsel for an officer of the stature of the petitioner, the office of the Chief Minister or the Deputy Chief Minister would not ordinarily be interested.
5. A perusal of the original record shows that peon Charan Singh was deputed for serving the transfer order on the petitioner, who had reported that the petitioner was not available on two dates at his residence i.e. on April 10, 2006 and April 19, 2006. The report of the peon Charan Singh is also on the record.
6. Mr. Harish Rathee, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has argued that the transfer is not actuated by any mala fide but it is the result of administrative exigency. According to the learned State counsel, the transfer order is only passed in exercise of administrative orders and no judicial review is permissible.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the transfer order dated 7.4.2006 (Annexure P.7) has failed to satisfy the judicial scrutiny. We ordinarily refuse to interfere in the transfer orders as such orders are not subjected to judicial review and that such orders are considered purely administrative in nature. But in a case of the present nature where four transfers have been made in a span of about 8 months we felt the necessity to ascertain the basic reasons for passing such an order. On our repeated queries, learned State counsel has failed to divulge any such reason which may justify the transfer of the petitioner four times. The petitioner was transferred from Kaithal to Gurgaon on 2.8.2005 (Annexure P.I) from Gurgaon to Narnaul on 13.9.2005 (Annexure P.2), from Narnaul to Faridabad on 23.12.2005 (Annexure P.3) and from Faridabad to Chandigarh on 7.4.2006 (Annexure P.7). It is an extra ordinary and exceptional case where the respondents have resorted to frequent transfers without satisfying the requirement of divulging the administrative exigency or the reasons for the afore-mentioned course.
8. The averment of the petitioner that when he was posted at Faridabad on 23.12.2005 (Annexure P.3), then he checked 51 petrol pumps in the month of March, 2006, conducted raids at the depots meant for public distribution of ration articles at subsidized rates in order to check the irregularities and corruption. He also asserted that criminal cases were registered against defaulting depot holders and it was found that several influential persons were running depots under the fake names of their relatives which resulted into recommendation of severe action against 16 depot holders. The petitioner also submitted a report against two L.P.G. agencies which have been causing huge loss to the government and were detrimental to the public at large.
9. In the written statement no satisfactory reply has been filed to the afore-mentioned averment which lead us to believe that the assertions made by the petitioner are factually correct. If that be so then the transfer of the petitioner would be absolutely arbitrary. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : AIR1997SC3067 in some what similar circumstances, their Lordships quashed he transfer order holding that it was not in-public interest and it was a case of victimisation of an honest officer. The views of their Lordships are discernible from paras 6 and 7 which reads as under:
In view of the unimpeachable and eloquent testimony of the performance of the duties, it will be obvious that the transfer is not in public interest but is a case of victimisation of an honest officer at the behest of the aggrieved complainants carrying on the business in liquor and toddy. Under these circumstances as stated earlier, the transfer of the appellant is nothing but mala fide exercise of the power to demoralise honest officers who would efficiently discharge the duties of a public office.
The appeal is accordingly, allowed The transfer order of the appellant stands quashed. Order may be communicated to the Chief Secretary to take appropriate action against the persons responsible for it and the action taken may be informed to this Registry.
(emphasis already supplied).
10. For the same proposition, we also draw support from the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sunanda Das v. State of Maharashtra 1999(3) R.S.J. 600. In that case also transfer of a Municipal Commissioner of Corporation at Pune was set aside by the Division Bench holding that it was outrageous and that it defies all logic and any moral standard. In that regard reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande (supra).
11. When the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the guidance provided by the Supreme Court no doubt is left that the transfer orders in this case are not the result of any administrative exigency. Such an order of transfer appears to be a handiwork of those who have not liked the working of the petitioner by unearthing their illegal and unconstitutional designs. It is for that reason alone that an endorsement in order Mark 'A' could furnish explanation. There appears to be some hidden hand at the back of the transfer of the petitioner which impel us to observe that the order of transfer is outrageous which defies all logical and moral standards.
12. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition succeeds and the order dated 7.4.2006 (Annexure P.7) transferring the petitioner from Faridabad to Chandigarh is quashed. We further direct that the petitioner shall be permitted to join at Faridabad within two weeks from today.
13. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.