U’khand HC quashes transfer of health officer over ‘lack of proper inquiry’

Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court has set aside the transfer of Rajani Rawat, currently posted as chief administrative officer (CAO) in the directorate of medical health services, holding that "the order -- though described as being on administrative grounds -- was not preceded by the inquiry and procedural safeguards mandated under the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017".The petition challenged a Feb 13 transfer order issued by the director general (DG), medical health and family welfare, transferring her in the same capacity to district hospital, Chamoli. The petitioner contended that the transfer was based on a report dated June 30, 2025, submitted by the DG, which allegedly relied on complaints made by other employees in Dehradun "without seeking her explanation or conducting a proper inquiry".
Relying on section 18(4) of the 2017 Act, the petitioner argued that transfers on administrative grounds are permissible only after "necessary enquiry and confirmation" on serious complaints. The provision further cautions that such transfers should not be made casually or on routine complaints and requires the order to expressly mention "administrative grounds".It was argued that the provision presupposes verification of allegations and an opportunity of hearing to enable the employee to rebut them and produce supporting evidence, which was not followed.The state, placing instructions from the assistant director (administration) on behalf of the DG, alleged that the petitioner had failed to comply with an earlier interdepartmental transfer order. It also referred to complaints by other employees and stated that allegations of financial irregularities led to the constitution of an inquiry committee by order dated Oct 14, 2025.The state further submitted that the petitioner had been directed to furnish audit reports for the past six years of the Uttaranchal Medical and Public Health Ministerial Association, where she served as president for a considerable period, but failed to do so.A bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, in its order dated Feb 25, noted that although the state asserted that the petitioner had been given full opportunity during the inquiry, none of the documents annexed with the instructions indicated that any such opportunity of hearing had been granted. The court also found no reference to any explanation submitted by the petitioner regarding the alleged defaults.The bench held that the "transfer order was not preceded by a proper inquiry" and observed that the "findings in the June 30 report appeared to be based on the DG's own perception, which did not satisfy the statutory requirement".Accordingly, the HC quashed the transfer order. Noting that the petitioner had already submitted a detailed representation on Feb 15 addressing the allegations in the report, the court permitted the respondents to pass a fresh order after considering the representation and affording her a proper opportunity of hearing. The petition was disposed of with a clarification that the petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry proceedings.