The Punjab And Haryana High Court in the case Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others observed that the recording adverse remarks in transfer orders such as having links with the accused indulging in intoxicant material and illegal mining is not being called for and should not be used against him.
The bench headed by Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill in the case observed while acknowledging that the respondents are well within their competence for transferring an employee for the administrative reasons or for any reason as found justifiable.
The court stated that the recordings such like the remarks is certainly not being called for as the same could stigmatic without such employee having been afforded a chance to refute the same.
Further, it has been clarified by the said court that the aforesaid remarks with regards to the employee having links with accused indulging in intoxicant material and illegal mining shall not be taken to be adverse or stigmatic in any manner against the employee.
In the present case, the writ petition is moved by the Sukhwinder Singh, ASI, who challenged his transfer order questioning its legality.
It has also been contended by Singh before the court that the transfer order on the face of it is illegal and it being punitive and the very first line of the transfer order shows that the transfer order is being passed in a punitive manner.
It has also been highlighted by the said court that having regards to the allegations being levelled in the transfer order, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have issued the show cause notice to him before passing of any such order in the absence of same, thus, the transfer order deserves to be set aside.
The court while considering the submissions made by the party noted that the transfer order passed indeed shows that in the very first line the reason assigned therein is that the officials are being transferred having links with accused indulged in intoxicant material and illegal mining.
It has also been contended by Singh before the court that the transfer order has not been served to him, thus, although the respondent in the reply have taken a stand that the petitioner himself did not come forward to collect a copy of the transfer order, but in any case, since the said question would be the disputed question in the matter.
Accordingly, the court disposed of the plea.
The counsel, A.K. Walia, Advocate appeared for the petitioner.
