0 (2 )CTC575 , 2009 INSC 981 , JT2009 (10 )SC 187 , 2010 LabIC650 , 2009 (10 )SCALE551 , (2009 )15 SCC178 , (2010 )1 SCC(LS)503 , [2009 ]12 SCR243 , 2009 (3 )SCT802 (SC ), 2010 (1 )SLR632 (SC ), 2010 (1 )SLR632 (SC ), ,MANU/SC/1341/2009Tarun Chatterjee#R.M. Lodha#2267SC2270Judgment/OrderAWC#CTC#INSC#JT#LabIC#MANU#SCALE#SCC#SCC(LS)#SCR#SCT#SLR#SLRR.M. Lodha,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24 -->

MANU/SC/1341/2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4975 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16307/2007) and Civil Appeal No. 4976 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18428/2007)

Decided On: 31.07.2009

Appellants: Rajendra Singh and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Tarun Chatterjee and R.M. Lodha

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow on August 22, 2007 whereby the High Court although upheld the order of the transfer of Karvendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as, "Writ Petitioner") but quashed the order of transfer of Rajendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as, "Respondent No. 5"). Both, Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 5, are aggrieved by the order of the High Court and hence, these two appeals by special leave.

2. The Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 are in the revenue service of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Both of them are Sub-Registrar. By an Office Order dated July 31, 2007 issued by I.G. Registration, Writ Petitioner, working as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad has been transferred to Hapur-II while Respondent No. 5, working as Sub-Registrar, Hapur-II has been transferred to Ghaziabad-IV. The transfer order dated July 31, 2007 came to be challenged by the Writ Petitioner before the High Court of Allahabad, Bench Lucknow. While challenging the legality of the transfer order, Writ Petitioner set up the grounds that he joined as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad, Sadar-IV only a month back; that the transfer order has been issued on the complaint of one Radhey Lal, Sanyojak Dalit Morcha Sangharsh Samiti, Lucknow and that the order of transfer was arbitrary, stigmatic and suffers from non-application of mind. The Writ Petitioner also set up the case that Respondent No. 5, who has been transferred in his place as Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad-IV did not have good service record; that there was vigilance enquiry pending against Respondent No. 5 on charges of corruption and that his service record bears adverse entry in the year 2005.

3. Respondent No. 5 as well as the State Government vehemently opposed the writ petition. On behalf of the State Government, it was submitted that although a complaint came to be received from one Radhey Lal against the Writ Petitioner but Ghaziabad-IV being an important Sub-District from the point of view of registration of deeds/instruments as well as revenue collection, the transfer of Writ Petitioner from Ghaziabad-IV to Hapur-II was done on administrative grounds. The State Government emphatically refuted the allegation of mala fides and denied that the order of transfer was stigmatic or punitive.

4. Respondent No. 5 filed a separate counter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition. He set up the plea that he has ric........