The above position was recently highlighted in Union of India and others v. Janardhan Debanath and another 2004 4 SCC 243 .
The writ petition was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 5.11.2003 holding that the order of transfer was punitive in nature and had been passed by the State Government without awaiting the decision in the disciplinary proceedings.
While respondent No.1 was functioning as an Executive Engineer Mechanical , Irrigation Division I, Government of U.P., he was transferred from the Tubewell Division I, Ghazipur to the office of Joint Chief Engineer, Tubewell East, Faizabad.
The said order of transfer of respondent No.1 having been quashed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, State of U.P. is in appeal.
An enquiry in a departmental proceedings had been initiated.
The primary stand taken in the writ application was that the order of transfer was as a measure of punishment.
2196/2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
Without affording him an opportunity of being heard, the transfer was done as a measure of punishment.
The present appellant State filed a companynter affidavit taking the stand that the transfer of the writ petitioner was on administrative grounds and merely because the writ petitioner was transferred to a number working post that did number in any way vitiate the order of transfer.
Arising out of SLP No.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court questioning the order of transfer.
