Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Girja Shankar Misra and Others
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17347/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17347/1999)
Government servant – Transfer – Challenge – Stay of transfer – Correctness – Writ against transfer dismissed by High Court – Review petition also rejected – While rejecting review, High Court staying transfer till the disposal of the petitioner’s representation to Government. Held, High Court having found no merits in writ and having dismissed the writ as well as review, it erred in staying transfer order. It was erroneous exercise of power and was totally uncalled for.
(Para 3)
1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent no. 1 herein was working in the Kanpur Development Authority on the post of Chief Accounts Officer. By the order dated 22nd September, 1999, he was transferred to Agra Develop-ment Authority along with the post. The respondent challenged the aforesaid transfer order by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition was dis-missed by a Bench of the High Court. The respondent subsequently moved a review petition. While rejecting the review petition, the High Court stayed the transfer of the respondent till his repre-sentation is decided by the State Government. It is against the said part of the order the appellant is in appeal before us.
3. Learned Counsel urged that once the writ petition as well as the review petition have been dismissed by the High Court, the High Court ought not to have granted relief of stay of transfer. The argument is well substantiated. As seen above, the High Court having not found any merit in the petition, dismissed the same and subsequently the review petition was also dismissed. Under such circumstances, it was erroneous exercise of power by the High Court when it stayed the order of transfer. Such an order was totally uncalled for. Under such circumstances, we set aside the order to the extent it stayed the transfer of the respondent.
4. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, this order will not preclude the State Government from considering the representation of the respondent.