Patna High Court
Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary,versusDeepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Singh
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The court quashed the order directing the transfer of the DFO, holding that such interference with service postings is beyond judicial jurisdiction under Article 226.
Summary
The State of Bihar appealed a single judge’s order that directed the transfer of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) from Sasaram to the headquarters during pending litigation concerning the seizure and confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle. The vehicle was seized in 2015 for allegedly carrying stone chips without a valid challan, leading to a confiscation order, an appeal, and a revision, all of which were dismissed. While the writ petition was pending, the seized vehicle was sold at public auction without a stay order, and the petitioner did not challenge the auction notice. The State argued that the court should not interfere with the executive’s power to post or transfer a public servant, invoking the need for administrative discretion. The court held that the single judge’s direction to transfer the DFO was beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226 and was perverse, quashing that part of the order. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed in part, and the transfer order was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the single judge erred in directing the transfer of the Divisional Forest Officer during pendency of the writ petition.
- Whether the court can interfere with the executive’s power of posting and transfer of a government servant absent illegality.
- Whether the public auction of the seized vehicle without a stay order is valid.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- forest confiscation
- vehicle seizure
- public auction
- transfer of government servant
- Article 226
- service law
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.34 of 2026
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5456 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, Rohtas Forest
Division, Rohtas at Sasaram.
5. Pradyumn Gaurav, the then DFO, Rohtas Forest Division at Sasaram
... ... Appellants
Versus
Deepak Kumar alias Deepak Kumar Singh, S/o Lallan Singh, Resident of
Mohalla - Subhash Nagar, P.S. - Dehri, District- Rohtas.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Anant Prasad Singh, S.C.-15
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.-15
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 02-04-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State
of Bihar challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5456 of 2020.
The aforesaid writ petition was filed by one Deepak
Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Singh for quashing the order dated
30.10.2019 passed in Forest Revision Case No. 17 of 2018 by
the Principal Secretary of Environment, Forest and Climate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.34 of 2026 dt.02-04-2026
2/7
Change Department, Bihar, Patna by which the revision case
was dismissed and the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the
District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Forest Confiscation
Appeal No. 15 of 2016 was affirmed, so also the order dated
23.12.2015 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-
Authorised Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram in Confiscation Case No.
127 of 2015.
2. After issuance of notice, counter affidavit was filed
by Respondent No.1, i.e., the Principal Secretary, Forest
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and supplementary
affidavit as well as counter affidavit filed by the Respondent
No.1, was also responded by the petitioner/respondent.
Similarly, counter affidavit was also filed by
Respondent No.4, the Assistant Conservator of Forest Division,
Rohtas at Sasaram, and one Pradyumn Gaurav, who was
subsequently arrayed as Respondent No.5, also filed an
affidavit.
When the matter was taken up on 12.01.2026, the
learned Single Judge has been pleased to pass the impugned
order in observing that the then Divisional Forest Officer,
Sasaram should not continue at a responsible post of Divisional
Forest Officer, Ara, and the Additional Chief Secretary,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.34 of 2026 dt.02-04-2026
3/7
Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change was
directed to transfer the said officer to the Headquarters during
the pendency of the case.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the
Appellants-State is that the vehicle in question, a truck/hyva
bearing Registration No. JH-09Q-1483, belonging to the writ
petitioner was seized on 18.06.2015 on the purported charge of
carrying stone chips, without valid challan, leading to seizure of
the vehicle; consequently, confiscation proceeding was initiated
vide Confiscation Case No. 127 of 2015 and notice was issued
to the petitioner/respondent and ultimately on 23.12.2015,
confiscation order was passed, whereby, the said hyva was
directed to be confiscated. The writ petitioner, challenging the
confiscation order, preferred Forest Confiscation Appeal No. 15
of 2016. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, and then
he preferred a revision vide Forest Revision Case No. 17 of
2018, which was also dismissed by the Revisional Authority.
Challenging the confiscation order as well as the orders of the
Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 5456 of 2020, out
of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises.
4. It is the further contention of the learned counsel
Patna High Court L.P.A No.34 of 2026 dt.02-04-2026
4/7
for the State that during pendency of the writ petition, public
auction was held for selling the seized vehicles including the
vehicle of the writ petitioner, and accordingly it was sold.
However, no stay order was granted by the learned Single Judge
after filing of the writ petition till the vehicle was sold by way
of public auction and moreover, the auction sale notice was not
challenged by the writ petitioner.
5. The further contention of the learned counsel for
the State is that Pradyumn Gaurav was not the D.F.O. when the
confiscation order was passed on 23.12.2015 by his predecessor
and Pradyumn Gaurav joined as D.F.O., Rohtas only on
22.07.2019. It is contended that the nature of order that has been
passed by the learned Single Judge was not justified as the
power of transfer and posting of a public servant is within the
exclusive domain of the Executive. The employer has to
post/transfer a public servant from one place to the other
depending upon the administrative exigencies. The Court should
not assume such role, otherwise there would be a complete
chaos in the administration which would not be conducive in the
public interest.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that when the auction sale was held, the respondent was not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.34 of 2026 dt.02-04-2026
5/7
noticed.
7. Whether the respondent was noticed or not noticed,
is not the subject matter of dispute in this Letters Patent Appeal.
Admittedly, the auction sale notice has not been challenged by
the respondent. It is also not in dispute that no stay order has
been passed by the learned Single Judge after filing of the writ
petition till the vehicle was sold by way of public auction.
Before three forums, the writ petitioner has lost his case and
therefore, if the vehicle was put to auction sale and ultimately
sold, no fault can be found with the concerned authority.
Moreover, the person who was the Divisional Forest Officer at
the relevant point of time when the confiscation order was
passed was not Pradyumn Gaurav, who joined as D.F.O., Rohtas
only on 22.07.2019. In such a situation, the observation of the
learned Single Judge in directing transfer of a D.F.O. to the
Headquarters assuming the role of an employer was not proper
and justified.
Transfer of a Government servant is an incident of
service and it is generally a condition of service and an
employee has no choice in the matter. 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.34 of 2026 dt.02-04-2026
6/7
the transfer and posting of Government servant lie within
exclusive domain of the Government and the Court should not
assume the role of an employer. Transfer of a public servant is
made on administrative ground or in public interest. Unless the
transfer order is illegal on the ground of violation of statutory
rules or on the ground of mala fide or there are strong and
pressing grounds, it is not to be interfered with. 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.
We are of the humble view that the learned Single
Judge grossly erred in directing the transfer of the D.F.O. in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
There was absolutely no justification on the part of
the learned Single Judge to pass the impugned order dated
12.01.2026 and the order suffers from perversity.
8. In the result, the impugned order dated 12.01.2026
to the extent that the Divisional Forest Officer, Sasaram should
not continue at a responsible post of Divisional Forest Officer,
Ara and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change to transfer the said
Patna High Court L.P.A No.34 of 2026 dt.02-04-2026
7/7
officer to the Headquarters, stands quashed.
9. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to
the extent as indicated above.
10. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 06.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…