- (1.)HEARD Sri S. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the order of his transfer.
(2.)LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the impugned order of transfer having been passed at the behest of the Minister, Animal Husbandry and hence it is malicious in law and cannot be sustained.
After perusing the record as well as the judgment under appeal we are of the view that no interference is called for in this appeal. It appears that initially the appellant was posted as Live Stock Extension Officer at Cattle Care Centre, Niyamtabad, District Chandauli wherefrom he was transferred to Cattle Care Centre, Dulhipur vide Chief Veterinary Officer, District Chandauli's order dated 14-8-2006 and in his place one Ram Awadh Yadav, Live Stock Extension Officer was posted at Niyamtabad. Subsequently vide order dated 24-8-2006 the earlier order of transfer was modified and the appellant was posted at Kamalpur/dhanapur instead of Dulhipur and one Mohd. Hafiz was transferred from Bhismpur Chakia to Niyamtabad. The order dated 24-8-2006 thereafter was cancelled by order dated 12-9-2006 pursuant to the direction issued by Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Varanasi. It appears that the Ministry of Animal Husbandry thereafter intervened and pursuant to the Government Order dated 28-11-2006, the cancellation order dated 12-9-2006 was recalled. Thereafter by order dated 2-1- 2007 the appellant has been posted at Bhismpur Chakia i. e. the place wherefrom Sri Mohd. Hafiz was transferred to Niyamtabad and the said Sri Mohd. Hafiz has been sent Niyamtabad where against the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. The only ground which has been taken by the appellant and argued before us is that the impugned order of transfer having been passed pursuant to the orders of the Minister of the concerned department, therefore, per se it is vitiated in law. We do not find any force in the submission. A Minister of the department in our view can give suitable direction in the interest of the department to the officers concerned, since for effective functioning of the department he is answerable to the representatives of the people in the House. A Division Bench in Narendra Kumar Rai v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 2002 (1) LBESR 420 (All) : 2002 (1) UPLBEC 369, while considering the transfers made on the representation of representative of people i. e. M. L. A. or M. P. observed as under : "we are clearly of the opinion that from the mere fact that if a Government servant is transferred on the basis of a complaint made by a MLA or MP or a leader of the political party, it cannot be held that the same is mala fide and the transfer order cannot be struck down on the said ground alone without there being anything more. A MLA or MP is the representative of the people and common public has access to him. Often it is very difficult for a common man to meet the higher officers and to bring to their notice the misdeeds or the wrong way of functioning of a Government servant at a lower level. It is not possible for a common man to go to the capital of the State namely, Lucknow, and then to meet the higher officers to lodge a complaint against the wrong manner of functioning of a Government servant. The MLA and MP visit their constituency frequently and meet the members of the public. It is far easier for the public to lodge a complaint against the improper functioning of a Government servant with their representative namely the MLA or MP of the area than with the higher officers. If in such circumstances, the MLA or MP takes up the matter and brings to the notice of the higher officers or the minister of the concerned department about the misdeeds of a Government servant, no exception can be taken to such a course of action. The representatives of the people (MLA and MP) hold responsible constitutional position and there is no presumption that whenever they drew attention to the misdeeds of a Government servant they do so with mala fide intention. A transfer order passed soon after a letter or complaint lodged by MLA or MP or a political person cannot be branded as having been done at the dictate of such a person. There is no presumption that the authority passing the transfer orders has not applied his independent mind. It is quite likely that the authority was not aware of the situation and after the full and correct facts were brought to his notice he decides to take appropriate action on objective consideration. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that without there being anything more, the mere fact that a transfer order has been passed soon after a complaint has been sent by MLA or MP or a political person to the minister or superior officers of the concerned department, it cannot be branded as having been passed without application of mind or on the dictate of a political person. "

The position of a Minister of the Department stands on a much higher footing. The executive power of the State is exercised in the manner provided in the constitution and the various provisions made thereunder. The Governor runs the executive Government of State with the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and the Counsel of Ministers which exercise powers and perform its duties by the individual Ministers as public officers with the assistance of the bureaucracy working in various departments and corporate sectors etc. Though the executive orders are required to be authenticated in the manner prescribed under Article 166 (3) i. e. they are expressed in the name of the Governor but each Minister is individually and collectively responsible for the actions, acts and policies. They are accountable and answerable to the people. Their powers and duties are regulated by law and the rules. The legal and moral responsibility or the liability for the acts or omissions, duties performed and policy laid down rest solely on the Minister of the Department. In Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain & Ors. , 1997 (1) SCC 35, the Apex Court in respect to the Minister of the Department observed as under : "they are indictable for their conduct or omission, or misconduct or misappropriation. The Council of Ministers are jointly and severally responsible to the legislature. He/they is/are also publicly accountable for the acts or conducts in the performance of duties. "

(3.)THE position of Minister of Department was further explained in paras 12 and 13 of the judgment as under : " (12) When a Government in office misuses its powers figuratively, we refer to the individual Minister/council of Ministers who are constituents of the Government. THE Government acts through its bureaucrats, who shape its social, economic and administrative policies to further the social stability and progress socially, economically and politically. Actions of the Government, should be accounted for social morality. THErefore, the actions of the individuals would reflect on the actions of the Government. THE actions are intended to further the goals set down in the Constitution, the laws or administrative policy. THE action would, therefore, bear necessary integral connection between the 'purpose' and the end object of public welfare and not personal gain. THE action cannot be divorced from that of the individual actor. THE end is something aimed at and only individuals can have and shape the aims to further the social, economic and political goals. THE ministerial responsibility thereat comes into consideration. THE Minister is responsible not only for his actions but also for the job of the bureaucrats who work or have worked under him. He owes the responsibility to the electors for all his actions taken in the name of the Governor in relation to the Department of which he is the head. If the Minister, in fact, is responsible for all the detailed workings of his department, then clearly ministerial responsibility must cover a wider spectrum than mere moral responsibility; for no Minister can possibly get acquainted with all the detailed decisions involved in the working of his department. THE ministerial responsibility, therefore, would be that the Minister must be prepared to answer questions in the House about the actions of his department and the resultant enforcement of the policies. He owes them moral responsibility. But for actions performed without his concurrence also, he will be required to provide explanations and also bear responsibility for the actions of the bureaucrats who work under him. THErefore, he bears not only moral responsibility but also in relation to all the actions of the bureaucrats who work under him, bearing actual responsibility in the working of the department under his ministerial responsibility. (13) All purposes or actions for which moral responsibility can be attached are actions performed by individual persons composing the department. All Government actions, therefore, means actions performed by individual persons to further the objectives set down in the Constitution, the laws and the administrative policies to develop democratic traditions, social and economic democracy set down in the Preamble, Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. THE intention behind the Government actions and purposes is to further the public welfare and the national interest. Public good is synonymous with protection of the interests of the citizens as a territorial unit or nation as a whole. It also aims to further the public policies. THE limitations of the policies are kept alongwith the public interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or abuse of the office or the executive actions for personal gain or for illegal gratification. "
The same view has been reiterated in Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. , AIR 1997 SC 3297.