Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Bijendra Veer Bikram Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 68225 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21079 (14 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68225 of 2006

Constable Brijendra Veer Bikram Singh


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has been performing and discharging duties in Civil Police. Petitioner was transferred from Civil Police to Armed Police. Request was being made by the petitioner to repatriate back him in Civil Police but as no action was being taken, in this background petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46845 of 2006 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 29.08.2006 directed the authorities concerned to take appropriate decision for repatriating the petitioner back in Civil Police. Pursuant to directives issued by this Court petitioner has been repatriated back in Civil Police on 29.08.2006. Thereafter petitioner has been transferred  to Agra. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Sri S.K. Pandey counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case power of transfer has been malafidly exercised without there being any real and genuine reason for the same, as such transfer order in the present case is liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that petitioner has been transferred as per requirement of the department, in public interest alongwith other incumbents as such no interference is warranted by this Court and writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner has been performing and discharging duties in Civil Police and thereafter petitioner was transferred from Civil Police to Armed Police. Petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46845 of 2006, as he was not being repatriated back to Civil Police, even after expiry of time prescribed and this Court on 29.08.2006 directed the authorities concerned to take appropriate decision. Thereafter pursuant to directives issued by this Court, petitioners' claim has been considered and he has been repatriated in Civil Police. Petitioner pursuant to order dated 25.05.2006, passed by Traffic Directorate, U.P. at Lucknow, has been transferred and relieved on 05.12.2006 to join at Agra.

Much emphasis has been placed that transfer of petitioner has been made with malafide intention. In this connection petitioner has placed reliance on Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ramanand Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in [2006 (4) ESC 2996(All)(DB)]. Said judgment will not come to rescue of petitioner, as in the said case transfer order has been on the dictates of  minister whereas here in the present case transfer of the petitioner has been made in administrative exigency, without there being any element of malafide present. No one in present case has been impleaded in personal capacity, nor any allegation are there. Order of transfer is dated 25.05.2006 and same has been implemented on 05.12.20006, as such it cannot be inferred that merely because this Court had issued directive on 29.08.2006, as such same is directly co-related. Repatriation and transfer are two different action and are not at all co-related with each other.  

At this juncture the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Unior of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and others reported in [(2005) 8 SCC 760] qua malafides is being looked into as follows:

21. Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse by the authority of its power. While the indirect motive or purpose, or bad faith or personal ill will is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof, it is obviously difficult to establish the state of a man's mind, for that is what the employee has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done. The difficult is not lessended when one has to establish that a person apparently acting on the legitimate exercise of power has, in fact, been acting malafides in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. It is not the law that mala fide in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order. If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. (S Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab) reported in [(1964) 4 SCR 733 or AIR 1964 SC 72] It cannot be overlooked that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. As noted by this Court in E.P. Royappa Vs. State of T.N reported in [(1974) 4 SCC 3 or AIR 1974 SC 555] courts would be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before them by a party, particularly when the imputations are gave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. (See Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in [(2003) 4 SCC 579.

22. As observed by this Court in Gulam Mustafa Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [(1976) 1 SCC 800] mala fides is the last refuge of a losing litigant."

Here also plea of malafide has been set up by the petitioner but such plea of malafide does not stand substantiated and has been mentioned only for the purposes of case.

The view point of Hon'ble Apex Court qua transfer is also being looked into to know the parameters of interference in transfer matter. In the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1995 (71) FLR 1011 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer order issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day to day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration, which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."

In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in 2004 (101) FLR 586 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"7. it is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra in the law governing or conditions of services. Unless the order if transfer is shown to be an outcome of a malafide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order or transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer polices at the best may afford an opportunity to the office or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless as noticed supra shown to be vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions.

8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirement of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of Competent Authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.

9. The very questions involved, as found noticed by the High Court in these case being disputed questions of facts, there was hardly any scope for the High Court to generalise the situations based on its own appreciation and understanding of the prevailing circumstances as disclosed from some write ups in journals or newspapers reports. Conditions of service or rights, which are personal to the parties concerned, are to be governed by rules as also the inbuilt powers of supervision and control in the hierarchy of the administration of State or any authority as well as the basis concepts and well-recognised powers and jurisdiction inherent in the various authorities in the hierarchy. All that cannot be obliterated by sweeping observations and directions unmindful of the anarchy which it may create in ensuring and effective supervision and control and running of administration merely on certain assumed notions of orderliness expected from the authorities effecting transfers. Even as the position stands, avenues are open for being availed of by anyone aggrieved, with the concerned authorities, the Courts and Tribunals, as the case may be to seek relief even in relation to an order of transfer or appointment or promotion or any order passed in disciplinary proceedings on certain well-settled and recognised grounds or reasons, when property approached and sought to be vindicated in the  manner known to and in accordance with law. No such generalised directions as have been given by the High Court could ever be given leaving room for an inevitable impression that the Courts are attempting to take over the reigns of executive administration. Attempting to undertake an exercise of the nature could even be assailed as an onslaught and encroachment on the respective fields or areas of jurisdiction earmarked for the various other limbs of the State. Giving room for such an impression should be avoided with utmost care and seriously and zealously Courts endeavour to safeguard the rights of parties."    

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another reported in [(2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 245 has taken the view that transfer order should not be interfered unless same is in violation of statutory provisions or order passed is malafide. Relevant extract is being quoted below:

"The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident but a condition of service. Necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan reported in [(2001) 8 SCC 574].                                                                      

The caution given by Hon'ble Apex Court qua transfer matters of members of Force has been given in the case of Major General, J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India reported in 2005(107) FLR 37 in following terms.

" It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in case of civilian employees or those who are working in Public Sector Undertakings. The scope of interference by Courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed force should posted. The Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless and exceptionally strong case is made out no interference should be made."    

On the touch stone of the judgments quoted above fact of present case is being adverted to. In the present case petitioner is member of disciplined force and holds transferable post and has been transferred. There is no violation of any statutory rule. Consequently in the fact of the present case and keeping in view the caution given by Hon'ble Apex Court no interference is warranted by this Court with the impugned order of transfer.

At last petitioner has been contended that lot of personal inconveniences would be caused, on account of said transfer order. Transfer and posting are in the domain of authorities concerned, and it is not for this Court to see as to where an incumbent is to be posted and his services are to be best utilized. Conveniences and inconveniences can be appreciated by Authorities concerned, as such liberty is given to petitioner to approach the Authority concerned, for redressal of his grievance on this aspect of the matter. In case any representation is moved same be dealt with preferably within next eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.  

In term of observations made above, present writ petition is dismissed.

Dated: 14th December, 2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.