Case Background
The appellant was working in the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) in Bihar. He had been appointed on compassionate grounds on 12.02.2011.
On 01.11.2023, the competent authority in PHED passed an order transferring him from Public Health Division, Araria to Public Health Division, Bhabua. The order itself described the transfer as being in public interest and due to administrative exigency.
The appellant was aggrieved by this transfer, especially because the new posting was stated to be more than 600 kilometres away from his existing place of work. He approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17726 of 2023, challenging the legality of the transfer order.
The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, by judgment dated 28.11.2024, dismissed the writ petition. The Single Judge did not find any ground to interfere with the transfer made by the department.
Against that dismissal, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 1297 of 2024) under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, placing the matter before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, heard the appeal. The appellant’s side was represented by learned counsel Mr. Siyaram Pandey. The State authorities were represented by learned Additional Advocate General No. 3, Mr. P. K. Verma, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3.
The core question before the Court was whether the transfer order dated 01.11.2023 was illegal because it was allegedly based on allegations of misconduct, without any prior show-cause notice or inquiry, and even though there was a Government policy that, according to the appellant, restricted such transfers.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the transfer order could not be sustained because of Clause 4(iii) of a policy/letter bearing Memo No. 1243 dated 08.10.2014. According to the appellant, this policy stated that when there are allegations against an employee for disobedience of orders or not discharging duties properly, the authority must first issue a show-cause notice and call for an explanation, and the employee cannot be transferred on the basis of such allegations.
To support this argument, the appellant’s counsel referred to a letter dated 07.10.2023 (Letter No. 341) written by the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Purnea Division, to the Engineer-in-Chief, PHED, Bihar, Patna. A copy of this letter was on record at Page 157 of the compilation.
In that letter, certain allegations were made against the appellant, including that he had misbehaved with his superior officers. On that basis, the Chief Engineer requested that the appellant be transferred. The transfer order dated 01.11.2023 referred to this letter, and the appellant argued that this showed the transfer was in fact punishment for alleged misconduct, which should have been preceded by a show-cause and inquiry.
The appellant further stressed that the transfer to a place more than 600 kilometres away made the order harsh and punitive in effect. He contended that the learned Single Judge had not properly appreciated these aspects, especially the effect of Clause 4(iii) of the policy dated 08.10.2014. He requested that both the Single Judge’s decision and the transfer order be set aside.
On the other side, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the appeal and supported the reasoning of the Single Judge. He submitted that the transfer was not made “because of” the allegations, but in public interest and due to administrative exigency. He pointed out that the actual transfer order dated 01.11.2023 did not record any allegation against the appellant, nor did it describe the transfer as a punishment.
According to the State, the mere reference in the transfer order to the communication dated 07.10.2023 did not convert the transfer into a punitive one. The decision to shift an employee from one division to another was an administrative decision taken for departmental needs, and the Court should not interfere unless there was clear illegality or mala fide.
To support this stance, the Additional Advocate General relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245. He particularly relied on paragraph 14 of that judgment, where the Supreme Court held that:
For the purpose of effecting a transfer, holding a detailed inquiry to prove misbehaviour is unnecessary; what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the concerned authority on contemporary reports. Insisting on an elaborate inquiry before transfer in public interest or administrative exigency would frustrate the very object of transfer to enforce decorum and ensure probity. Whether an employee should be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider, and the Court should not direct one way or the other.
The Division Bench carefully considered the submissions and examined the material on record, including the transfer order, the letter dated 07.10.2023, and the policy dated 08.10.2014.
First, the Court noted that the appellant was a compassionate appointee, appointed on 12.02.2011, and that the impugned transfer order was passed on 01.11.2023. The order clearly stated that the appellant was being transferred from Public Health Division, Araria to Public Health Division, Bhabua “on administrative ground” and “in public interest.”
Next, the Court examined the appellant’s main contention based on Clause 4(iii) of the policy dated 08.10.2014. The appellant had argued that once allegations were made against an employee, he could not be transferred on that basis, and that the authority first had to issue a show-cause notice.
To test this contention, the Court scrutinised the transfer order placed at Page 67 of the compilation. From a plain reading of the order, the Court found that no allegation against the appellant had been recorded in the order itself. The transfer order simply recorded that the move was in public interest and due to administrative exigency.
The Court acknowledged that the transfer order did contain a reference to the communication dated 07.10.2023. However, the Court held that a mere reference to a prior letter did not by itself prove that the transfer was made as a punishment for alleged misconduct. The Bench made it clear that the presence of such a reference “does not mean” that the employee was transferred because certain allegations were levelled against him.
The Division Bench then turned to the Supreme Court judgment in Janardhan Debanath. Quoting paragraph 14, the Court emphasised the principle that issues of alleged misbehaviour can be examined in a departmental proceeding, but that is different from ordering a transfer. For transfer, an elaborate inquiry is not required; prima facie satisfaction based on reports is enough, especially when it is done in public interest or administrative exigency.
On this basis, the Court concluded that even if there were allegations and a letter making a request for transfer, that alone could not invalidate a transfer order that on its face was passed in public interest and on administrative grounds.
The Bench finally observed that the learned Single Judge had examined this position correctly and had not committed any error in refusing to interfere. The reasoning of the Single Judge, according to the Division Bench, called for no interference in Letters Patent Appeal.
Consequently, the Court held that the appeal had no merit. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and any interlocutory applications also stood disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government employees, especially in Bihar, who feel their transfer is being used as a hidden punishment.
The Patna High Court has clearly said that, where the transfer order itself states that it is made in public interest and on administrative grounds, and does not mention misconduct or punishment, the Court will usually not interfere, even if there were earlier complaints or letters mentioning misbehaviour.
The judgment also underlines that transfer is generally considered an administrative matter. Before transferring an employee, the department is not required to hold a full-fledged inquiry, even if some allegations exist. A prima facie satisfaction of the authority, based on reports, can be enough for a transfer in public interest.
For employees, this means that challenging a transfer order simply on the ground that there were allegations in the background will be difficult, unless the transfer order itself or the surrounding facts clearly show mala fide or that it is a disguised punishment.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a transfer order be quashed when an employee alleges that it is based on allegations of misconduct and violates a departmental policy requiring show-cause notice before such action?
Answer: No. The Court held that where the transfer order on its face shows it is passed in public interest and due to administrative exigency, and does not record allegations or punishment, it cannot be set aside merely because there is a reference to an earlier letter containing allegations. - Issue: Is a detailed inquiry necessary before transferring an employee when there are complaints of misbehaviour against him?
Answer: No. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Janardhan Debanath, the Court held that for transfers in public interest or administrative exigency, a full departmental inquiry is not required; prima facie satisfaction of the authority based on contemporary reports is sufficient.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1297 of 2024 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17726 of 2023
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 22
Date of Judgment: 12.08.2025
Advocates: For the appellant: Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Advocate. For the respondents/State: Mr. P. K. Verma, AAG-3; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3.
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging a transfer order.
Link to the Judgment: View official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
