Assistant Excise Inspectors Transfer: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has held that assistant excise inspectors’ post though transferable but frequent transfers not admissible.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi has observed that though there is no manner of doubt that the posts involved are transferable which may be done in public interest and following the due process of law, frequent transfer of the present nature cannot be endorsed by the Court in the interest of justice.

Background

The petitioners/assessees are serving as Assistant Excise Inspectors. The subject matter involved is frequent transfer of the petitioners. The challenge in all these three cases pertains to a transfer order passed by the Commissioner of Excise, Assam.

The petitioner, namely Anish Kalam, was initially serving at Dhubri when he was transferred to Dhakuakhana by an order dated 12.02.2024. By order dated 06.06.2024, he has been transferred from Dhakuakhana to Hajo.

The petitioner, Zamaluddin Ahmed was earlier posted at Chapormukh and was transferred to Dhekiajuli on 12.02.2024. By order dated 06.06.2024, he has been transferred from Dhekiajuli to Sadiya vice the respondent no. 5, Shri Dipjyoti Adhikary.

The petitioner, Sushanta Debnath was earlier serving at Guwahati and was transferred to Hajo on 12.02.2024. By the order dated 06.06.2024, he has again been transferred from Hajo to Dhakuakhana vice the incumbent Anish Kalam.

Arguments

The petitioners contended that frequent transfers, as such, are not to be taken recourse to unless and until there is serious exigency. In this regard, reference has been made to Office Memoranda dated 12.11.2009, 06.08.2013 and earlier notification holding the field. Hardly 4 months prior to theorder of transfer dated 06.06.2024, the petitioners were already transferred and therefore, there is no public interest involved at all for again transferring them.

The petitioner contended that though a stand has been taken by the Department that the earlier transfer order dated 12.02.2024 was due to a directive of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the fact remains that the petitioners were made to move from one location to another. Frequent transfers, apart from causing inconvenience and harassment would also adversely affect the morale of the Government servant.

The department contended that there are cogent reasons for effecting the transfer. It is submitted that it is not only the three petitioners who were transferred by the order dated 06.06.2024 but a total of 39 officers and the other officers are also involved who are not aggrieved by the same. By referring to Annexure-A of the affidavit-in- opposition filed on 24.06.2024, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the consideration for the impugned transfer is revealed from the note sheet.

The department argued that due to certain change in the rate of ad-valorem levy, there is a surge of inflow of liquor from the neighbouring States and only to place the “right official at the right place”, the transfer has been effected. It is submitted that there is no mala fide alleged or involved and the transfer has been made in the public interest. The learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that the post concerned, namely, Assistant Excise Inspector is not covered under the Office Memoranda referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners.