1 2025:CGHC:16890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2479 of 2025 1 - Khemlal Gahne S/o Late Jeevan Das Gahne Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Sub-Treasury Officer At Ambagarh Chowki, District : Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Block-A, First, Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector (Treasury Branch) District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Treasury Officer District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Raju Rambhad Assistant Treasury Officer, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Omprakash Mahla District Coordinator Chhattisgarh Officers And Employees Federation, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Janpad Panchayat Ambagarh Chowki, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, PL (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.16 10:33:40 +0530 2 04/04/2025 (Annexure-P/7) whereby the petitioner has been relieved from all the responsibilities and additional charges from the post of Treasury Officer, Ambagarh Chowki and the services of the petitioner has been attached to the office of Respondent No.7. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector who has passed the impugned order, is not empowered to pass such an order as respondent No.2 is appointing authority of the petitioner. Even as per circular dated 17/01/2025, it is apparent that the Collector cannot pass transfer order of the petitioner as he is an employee of the Finance Department. He would next submit that the order of transfer has been issued only on the complaint made by respondent No.6 and the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and the petitioner replied the same, inspite of the said reply, the impugned order of transfer has been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the Collector is empowered to pass the transfer order by which the petitioner has been directed to be relieved from the present place of posting and to join the office of Treasury, Janpad Panchayat, Ambagarh Chowki. The order of transfer has been passed on administrative exigency and there is no illegality in the same. He would next submit that even the circular dated 17/01/2021 will not come in the way of passing the order of transfer as the Collector is head of the department of treasury in the District. He can post a person of treasury department at any place in the District. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned dated 04/04/2025 (Annexure-P/7). 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it is quite vivid that the Collector, 3 by relieving the petitioner from all the responsibilities/additional charges, attached his services to the Treasury Office, Janpad Panchayat, Ambagarh Chowki. Further, it appears from the pleadings that on the basis of some complaint, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the same was relied by the petitioner, inspite thereof the petitioner has been transferred. 6. It is a settled law that transfer is an incident of Service and that who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to decide. It is also well settled that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. 7. The Collector being head of Treasury Department is having every power to post an employee of the Treasury to any other place in the District on administrative exigency arises. It appears from the impugned order that the transfer of the petitioner has been made on administrative exigency, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul