1 2025:HHC:6727 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LP A No. 379 of 2024 Decided on: 18.03.2025 Ravinder Kumar ......appellant Versus State of H.P & Another ...respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.1170 of 2024 decided on 20.11.2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has not interfered 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 with the order dated 16.02.2024, transferring the employee from District Jail, Una (Bangarh) to Sub Jail, Kalpa, District Kinnaur (Annexure P-2), prayed in the Writ petition. 2. A perusal of transfer order (Annexure P-2) would go on to show that it is on the basis of administrative grounds. It is also pertinent to notice that another similarly situated employee namely Sh. Neelam Chaudhary, Warder was also moved out from the said District Jail, Una vide the same order. 3. The learned Single Judge noticed that there is a communication dated 20.09.2023 by the SDM, Una (Annexure R-6) which shows that the petitioner was in contact with under-trial prisoner, who was apparently lodged in the said jail and therefore the recommendation has been made to transfer him and necessary approval was given on an earlier occasion on 30.12.2023, on the basis of which, transfer order was passed. The grounds of mala fide, as such, was rejected. 3 4. It is also noticed that an inquiry under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, has also been initiated and Inquiry Officer has also been appointed to look into the charges framed against him on 18th March, 2024. It is brought to our notice that inquiry proceedings are also at the fag end. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the transfer was apparently punitive, as such, and therefore the learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the argument, as such, on the ground of mala fide. 6. We have perused the paper book and it is apparent that on an earlier request made, the petitioner has been transferred to the said post on 06.04.2023 (Annexure R-5). Since, he apparently made the said request to the Chief Minister and the transfer was on mutual basis from Sub Jail, Nalagarh, District Solan. After the transfer order, as such, the petitioner has approached this Court and an interim order was passed in the Writ petition, as such, by the learned 4 Single Judge. Even today, in the Appeal there is an interim order, as such, and thus for all intents and purposes, the petitioner has already stayed at Una for almost 2 years. 7. The allegation against the petitioner who is posted in a sensitive department and apparently on account of a communication received from the SDM, Una, the action, as such, was initiated against him alleging, of his having been in touch with one under-trial prisoner, who was earlier lodged in jail, under his supervision and in such circumstances, the authority has transferred him to Sub Jail, Kalpa, Kinnaur from District Jail, Bangarh, Una on administrative grounds, while also opening up the issue of departmental proceedings, which apparently are at an advanced stage. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that while considering the fact that the petitioner was found to be in touch with one under-trial prisoner as there is some electronic record in the form of recording, the administration as such, has chosen to shift him out instead of putting him under suspension. The learned 5 Single Judge in such circumstances has chosen not to interfere with the order, keeping in view the facts and circumstances. All the arguments, as such, which have been raised, would not be applicable in the present facts, keeping in view the nature of the work of the appellant being a Warder having constant touch with an under-trial prisoner. Apparently due to his conduct, as such, the departmental authority has also proceeded against him at some point of time and it cannot be said that there was no basis, as such, for his transfer and given the exigencies and situation, the respondents have resorted to this mode. Keeping in view the environment of the District Jail has to be kept in mind, as such, and issue of security which would arise, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was well justified in not exercising the extraordinary powers of Writ jurisdiction in favour of the employee, who has transgressed his position, as such, by not acting with responsibility. In such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, we make it clear that any observation made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal and the respondents shall not be prejudiced in any manner while acting on the departmental side and shall base their findings arrived on the basis of record and shall be on the basis of evidence brought on record in departmental proceedings. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice March 18, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge