Uttarakhand High Court Expunges 'Adverse' Remarks In Transfer Order Concerning Son Of Nainital Rape Accused

Before the bench, Khan's counsel, Advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta, argued that he does not have any problem with his transfer but was aggrieved with the manner in which he was transferred, and particularly the remarks made against him in the order.

His transfer order contained allegations of laxity, negligence and non-compliance with orders passed by his superior authorities.

It was contended that the remarks in the order made his transfer 'stigmatic' and 'punitive', therefore, he was required to be heard, but he was not given the opportunity of hearing at any stage, which is in violation of Section 18 (4) of the Transfer Act, 2017.

On the other hand, the Advocate General, assisted by Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, conceded that the petitioner was indeed not heard while making adverse remarks against him in the impugned transfer order.

It was, however, submitted that Khan's transfer was made in the public interest.

Against this backdrop, finding substance in the submission made by the petitioner's counsel, the bench passed the following order:

“There are remarks which are disparaging in nature made in the impugned order. Since petitioner was not heard while making such remarks, therefore, we expunge all adverse remarks made against petitioner in impugned transfer order…”

In its order, the Court also clarified that the petitioner's transfer shall be treated in the public interest. However, the competent authority would be at liberty to proceed in the matter as per law if there are serious complaints against the petitioner.