Administrative transfer under Uttarakhand Transfer Act requires prior inquiry and opportunity of hearing to be valid.

The Petitioner, serving as Chief Administrative Officer in the Directorate of Medical Health Services, Dehradun, challenged a transfer order dated 13.02.2026, which moved her to District Hospital Chamoli on "administrative grounds".

The transfer was based on a report dated 30.06.2025 by the Director General of Medical Health, citing employee complaints and alleged financial irregularities.

The Petitioner contended that the report was prepared without seeking her explanation or conducting a proper inquiry.

The State argued that the Petitioner had ignored prior transfer orders and failed to submit required audit reports, maintaining that an inquiry committee had been formed in October 2025.

Whether a transfer on "administrative grounds" under the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, can be sustained without a verified inquiry and an opportunity for the employee to be heard.

Whether the impugned transfer order fulfilled the statutory safeguards provided under Section 18(4) of the 2017 Act.

The Court applied Section 18(4) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, which mandates that transfers on administrative grounds—such as misconduct or misbehavior—must be preceded by a "necessary enquiry and confirmation" of the allegations.

The proviso to this section explicitly states that such transfers shall not be made "casually" or based on routine complaints.

The court interpreted this statute to presuppose the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring that the concerned employee is granted an opportunity of hearing to rebut allegations and lead evidence before the transfer is finalized.

The Court observed that while the State alleged the existence of an inquiry committee, the documents provided failed to demonstrate that any actual opportunity of hearing or explanation was afforded to the Petitioner.

The Court noted that the Director General’s report of 30.06.2025 appeared to be based on personal perception rather than a verified evidentiary process.

Since Section 18(4) of the Act establishes specific safeguards to prevent arbitrary administrative transfers, the failure to conduct a "proper inquiry"—which includes the right to be heard—rendered the transfer order legally deficient.

The Court determined that the statutory requirement of "confirmation" of complaints cannot be met through an ex-parte or superficial assessment.

The Court directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s detailed representation dated 15.02.2026 and pass a fresh order only after affording her a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Petitioner was further directed to cooperate in the ongoing inquiry.