Gauhati HC Halts 'Unjustified' Transfer Of Asst Excise Inspectors, Says Such Frequent Transfer Orders Cannot Be Endorsed In Interest Of Justice
The Gauhati High Court recently interfered and set aside the frequent transfer order of three Assistant Excise Inspectors on the ground that the reasons cited in the transfer orders are not justified. The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed:“…Though there is no manner of doubt that the posts involved are transferable which may be done in the public interest and...
The Gauhati High Court recently interfered and set aside the frequent transfer order of three Assistant Excise Inspectors on the ground that the reasons cited in the transfer orders are not justified.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed:
“…Though there is no manner of doubt that the posts involved are transferable which may be done in the public interest and following the due process of law, frequent transfer of the present nature cannot be endorsed by this Court in the interest of justice.”
Facts
One of the petitioners, Anish Kalam was initially serving at Dhubri when he was transferred to Dhakuakhana by an order dated February 12, 2024. By the impugned order dated June 06, 2024, was transferred from Dhakuakhana to Hajo.
Another petitioner, Zamaluddin Ahmed was earlier posted at Chapormukh and was transferred to Dhekiajuli on February 12, 2024. By the impugned order dated June 06, 2024, he was transferred from Dhekiajuli to Sadiya.
The third petitioner Sushanta Debnath was earlier serving at Guwahati and was transferred to Hajo on February 12, 2024. By the impugned order dated June 06, 2024, he was again been transferred from Hajo to Dhakuakhana.
Arguments
The Counsel for Petitioners submitted that frequent transfers, as such, are not to be taken recourse to unless and until there is serious exigency. It was argued that four months prior to the impugned order of transfer dated June 06, 2024, the petitioners were already transferred and therefore, there is no public interest involved at all in again transferring them.
It was further submitted that though a stand has been taken by the Excise Department that the earlier transfer order dated February 12, 2024, was due to a directive of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the fact remains that the petitioners were made to move from one location to another, therefore, it was contended that frequent transfers, apart from causing inconvenience and harassment would also adversely affect the morale of the Government servant.
On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the Excise Department submitted that there are cogent reasons for effecting the transfer and it is not only the three petitioners who were transferred by the order dated June 06, 2024, but a total of 39 officers and the other officers are also involved who are not aggrieved by the same.
It was further submitted that due to certain changes in the rate of ad-valorem levy, there is a surge of inflow of liquor from the neighbouring States and only to place the “right official at the right place”, the transfer has been effected. It was argued that there is no mala fide alleged or involved and the transfer has been made in the public interest.
Court's Observation
The Court observed that though it is the contention of the Department that the earlier transfer order dated February 12, 2024, had to be issued on the instructions of the ECI which were on account of the General Elections, it is a matter of fact that the incumbents had to move from one location to the other.
“It has been stated that due to certain changes of the rates of the ad-valorem levy w.e.f. 01.04.2024, transfers had to be effected to put the “right officials at the right” place to stop the inflow of liquor from the neighbouring States. The reason cited cannot be held to be justified at all as all Government servants in a particular cadre have to be treated at par. That apart, the transfers which are involved in the present three cases are not from locations which were in a neighbouring area of the State of Assam. As noted above, the impugned transfer order involves place of posting, like Hajo and Dhekiajuli and many other locations concerning 39 personnel which are not border areas of the State,” the Court noted.
Thus, the Court remarked that the reasons cited by the Department do not appear to be justified, more so when the petitioners involved had to move within less than four months from the earlier place of posting.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the transfers of the petitioners.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 61
Case Title: Sushanta Debnath v. The State of Assam & 4 Ors. and other connected matters
Case No.: WP(C)/3050/2024