Recording Adverse Remarks In Transfer Orders Uncalled For, Should Not Be Used Against Transferee Officer: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that recording adverse remarks in transfer orders such as “having links with accused indulging in intoxicant material and illegal mining” is not called for and should not be used against him.

While acknowledging that the respondents are well within their competence to transfer an employee for administrative reasons or for any reason as found justifiable, Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill said, 

“...but recording such like remarks is certainly not called for as the same could stigmatic without such employee having been afforded a chance to refute the same.”

The Court further clarified that the aforesaid remarks regarding the employee having links with accused indulging in intoxicant material and illegal mining shall not be taken to be adverse or stigmatic in any manner against the employee.

These observations were made while hearing the writ petition of Sukhwinder Singh, ASI who challenged his transfer order questioning its legality.

Singh contended that the transfer order on the face of it is illegal and is punitive and the very first line of the transfer order shows that the transfer order is being passed in a punitive manner.

It was also highlighted to the Court that having regard to the allegations levelled in the transfer order, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have issued a show cause notice to him before passing any such order and in the absence of the same, the transfer order deserves to be set aside.

Considering the submissions, the Court opined that the transfer order passed indeed shows that in the very first line the reason assigned therein is that “the officials are being transferred having links with accused indulging in intoxicant material and illegal mining”.

The said order certainly will have a tendency to be stigmatic, added the Court.

On Singh’s contention that that transfer order has not been served to him the Court said, although the respondents in the reply have taken a stand that the petitioner himself did not come forward to collect a copy of the transfer order, but in any case, since the said question would be a disputed question.

While disposing of the plea, the Court Court directed the respondents to consider the present petition itself as a representation and “to pass a speaking order on the same.”

Case Title: Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 153

Appearance: A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.