Patna High Court: In a letters patent appeal arising out of a writ petition concerning confiscation of a truck carrying stone chips without valid challan, the Division Bench of Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ., and Harish Kumar, J., held that the Single Judge erred in directing transfer of a Divisional Forest Officer (DFO). The Court observed that transfer and posting of government servants is an incident of service lying within the exclusive domain of the Government, and judicial interference in such matters is unwarranted. Accordingly, the Court quashed the transfer direction and allowed the appeal to that extent.
Background
The dispute originated from seizure of a truck in 2015 for carrying stone chips without a valid challan. A confiscation order was passed, which was upheld in appeal and revision. The matter was then brought before the Court through a writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition, the Single Judge directed that the officer concerned be transferred to headquarters and not be allowed to continue in a responsible post.
In appeal, the appellants contended that the confiscation and auction of the vehicle had already been lawfully completed, and that the officer against whom the transfer direction was issued was not even in-charge at the time the confiscation order was passed.
However, the respondent argued that he had not been given notice when the auction sale was conducted.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that whether the respondent was noticed or not noticed is not the subject-matter of dispute in this letters patent appeal. Moreover, the auction sale notice has not been challenged by the respondent. The Court noted that it is also not in dispute that no stay order was passed by the Single Judge after the filing of the writ petition until the vehicle was sold by way of public auction. Since the writ petitioner had lost his case before three forums, if the vehicle was put to auction sale and ultimately sold, no fault can be found with the concerned authority.
The Court further noted that the person who was the DFO at the relevant point of time when the confiscation order was passed was not the officer who joined as DFO only on 22 July 2019. In such a situation, the observation of the Single Judge in directing the transfer of a DFO to the headquarters, thereby assuming the role of an employer, was not proper and justified.
The Court observed that the transfer of a government servant is an incident of service and is generally a condition of service and an employee has no choice in the matter, as 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 a government servant lie within the exclusive domain of the Government, and the court should not assume the role of an employer.
The Court emphasised that the transfer of a public servant is made on administrative grounds or in public interest, and unless the transfer order is illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules, mala fide, or there are strong and pressing grounds, it is not to be interfered with. The Court highlighted that 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.
Decision
The Court held that the Single Judge grossly erred in directing the transfer of the DFO in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as there was absolutely no justification to pass the impugned order dated 12 January 2026, which suffers from perversity.
Accordingly, the order directing transfer was quashed, and the letters patent appeal was allowed to that extent.
[State of Bihar v. Deepak Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine Pat 2033, decided on 2-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: Anant Prasad Singh, S.C., Mithilesh Kumar Singh, A.C.
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate