# Bushra Firdaus v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 511
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-23
- **Case number:** Spl. Appl. D No. 724 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bushra-firdaus-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48551
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceeding -
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9(4), 10 - The
Disciplinary Authority has to consider the entire
material on record including the charges, facts
of the case, reply submitted by the petitioner to
the charge, evidence adduced dring inquiry and
then to record his independent and objective
opinion as to whether the charge against the
petitioner is proved ad why the reply of the
petitioner against the charge and his response

## Text

5 All. Bushra Firdaus Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
511
the same shall be considered and decided
with expedition.

36. In the facts of the case there will
be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A511
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Spl. Appl. D No. 724 of 2021
with
Spl. Appl. 721 of 2021

Bushra Firdaus ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ashok Khare (Senior Adv.), Sri Siddharth
Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mrs. Archana Singh (Addl. C.S.C.)

A. Service Law - The appellant is challenging
the transfer order by which she was asked to
rejoin at her original place of posting. Appellant
had submitted application seeking her transfer
which was approved but on verification it was
found that incorrect information was furnished
for transfer. The order of rejoining at her original
place of posting is correct as interchange of
cadre was not permissible in the Order dated
2.12.2019. (Para 7)
Appeal Rejected. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. The present intra-Court appeals
have been preferred assailing the common
judgement & order dated August 27, 2021
passed in leading Writ A No. 6418 of 2021,
vide which the writ petitions filed by the
appellants against their transfer orders have
been dismissed.

2. As the issues involved in these
appeals are similar arising out of common
judgement and order, hence the same are
being decided by the common order.

3. The facts of Special Appeal No.
724 of 2021 are taken for the purpose of
deciding these two appeals.

4. The appellant applied for intraState or inter-District transfer on the
strength of Government Order dated
December 9, 2019, which was accorded.
The application was processed and she was
transferred at her requested place. Later on,
on scrutiny of documents, it revealed that
the disclosed information given by the
appellant was incorrect and therefore her
transfer order was recalled. The appellant
preferred writ petition before this Court,
which was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge by the impugned order.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that transfer of
the appellant had been sanctioned by the
Board of Basic Education and on February
2, 2021, the appellant was relieved from
her place of posting in district Chitakoot
to join at the transferred place i.e. Rampur
vide order dated February 02, 2021. But
on May 10, 2021, the appellant was
directed to re-join at her original place of
posting i.e. district Chitakoot. Feeling
aggrieved, the appellant preferred writ
petition before this Court, which was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge
vide impugned order holding that incorrect
information was given by the appellant for
seeking her inter -district transfer. He
prays for allowing the appeal.
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel supports the impugned order and
prays that the present appeals are liable to
be dismissed summarily. He submitted that
the appellants herein got the benefit of the
policy by furnishing wrong information
hence, the order was rightly recalled.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and perusing the record, the
undisputed fact that emerges is that the
appellant was appointed as Assistant
Teacher in primary institution. After the
issuance of Government Order dated
December 2, 2019, appellant submitted
application seeking her transfer, which was
approved. Subsequently on verification it
was revealed that incorrect information was
furnished by the appellant for transfer that
she belonged to the rural local area cadre
while sought her transfer to urban local
area cadre. The said inter-change of cadre
was not permissible, in the absence of any
formal order. Therefore, the appellant was
rightly directed to re-join at her original
place of posting.

8. The appellant has also failed to
bring on record any cogent reason or
material to show that her posting was in
urban local area cadre instead of rural local
area cadre.

9. Learned Senior Counsel, at this
juncture, has submitted that the appellant
was receiving House Rent Allowance of
urban area. Therefore, she should be treated
in
Urban
Local
Area
Cadre.
The
appointment letter issued to the appellant is
on
record,
which
shows
that
her
appointment was in rural local area cadre.
Merely, the residence of appellant for
payment of House Rent Allowance for
urban local area has no relevance for
determining the cadre of the appellant.

10. It is stated at bar that the
appellants have joined at their original
place of posting.

11. In view of the facts stated above
as well as in the absence of any material
available on record to show that the
appellants belong to urban local area cadre,
no case is made out for interference with
the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.

12. The appeals fail and are
accordingly dismissed.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A512
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 28.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Writ-A No. 2432 of 2022

Dr. Ram Pujan Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sharad Pathak, Piyush Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceeding -
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9(4), 10 - The
Disciplinary Authority has to consider the entire
material on record including the charges, facts
of the case, reply submitted by the petitioner to
the charge, evidence adduced dring inquiry and
then to record his independent and objective
opinion as to whether the charge against the
petitioner is proved ad why the reply of the
petitioner against the charge and his response