'Decision To Transfer Govt Servant Lies With Executive': Patna HC Sets Aside Single Judge's Direction To Transfer Forest Officer

The Patna High Court has held that transfer and posting of a government servant lies within the exclusive domain of the executive, setting aside a Single Judge's direction to transfer a Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) during pendency of proceedings.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the State challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 5456 of 2020.

The writ had been filed by the respondent challenging confiscation of his vehicle, which had been seized in 2015 for allegedly transporting stone chips without valid documents. The confiscation order was upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, following which the respondent approached the High Court.

During pendency of the petition, the Single Judge, while hearing the matter, directed that the then Divisional Forest Officer, Sasaram, should not continue in his post and ordered his transfer to headquarters.

Assailing this direction, the State contended that the said officer was not even posted as DFO at the time when the confiscation order was passed, and that the power of transfer and posting lies exclusively with the executive. It was argued that the Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by assuming the role of the employer. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the auction of the seized vehicle had been conducted without notice.

The Court framed the issue as whether the Single Judge was justified in directing transfer of a public servant in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

On facts, the Court noted that no stay order had been granted by the Single Judge and the vehicle had already been sold through public auction. It further observed that the concerned officer had not even been posted at the relevant time when the confiscation order was passed. Emphasising settled principles governing service jurisprudence, the Court held:

“Transfer of a Government servant is an incident of service and it is generally a condition of service and an employee has no choice in the matter. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time, a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. Thus the transfer and posting of Government servant lie within exclusive domain of the Government and the Court should not assume the role of an employer. Transfer of a public servant is made on administrative ground or in public interest.

"Unless the transfer order is illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on the ground of mala fide or there are strong and pressing grounds, it is not to be interfered with. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest,” it added.

The Court further observed that unless a transfer order is vitiated by mala fides or violation of statutory provisions, courts ought not to interfere, as such interference would lead to administrative chaos.

Holding that the Single Judge had committed a jurisdictional error, the Court concluded that the direction to transfer the officer was unjustified and suffered from perversity.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned direction to transfer the DFO and allowed the appeal to that extent.

Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. Deepak Kumar alias Deepak Kumar Singh.

Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 2026 (in CWJC No. 5456 of 2020).

Appearance: Mr. Anant Prasad Singh and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh appeared for the State. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary appeared for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order