Uttarakhand High Court Intervenes in Alleged Retaliatory Transfer Case
The Uttarakhand High Court has taken a significant step by issuing an interim stay on the transfer of a child development project officer posted in Roorkee, Haridwar district. This judicial intervention comes after the officer filed a petition alleging that her transfer was a retaliatory action for raising serious sexual harassment allegations against her senior officer.
Court Proceedings and Immediate Relief
A single-judge bench of Justice Alok Mehra, while hearing the petition, issued notice to the state government and directed authorities to file a detailed reply. The court's interim order effectively halts the implementation and operation of the transfer order dated January 15, providing temporary relief to the petitioner while the matter undergoes judicial scrutiny.
Background of the Controversial Transfer
According to the petition filed before the court, the department had initially issued a show-cause notice to the officer on December 5, 2025. This notice was based on a viral audio recording that allegedly contained accusations of irregularities and illegal extortion within the nutrition scheme under her purview. The officer submitted a comprehensive reply on December 10, categorically terming these allegations as "baseless" and unfounded.
Despite her detailed response and the absence of any completed investigation, the department proceeded with her transfer on what were described as "administrative grounds." This action occurred without waiting for the conclusion of the inquiry into the allegations raised in the show-cause notice, raising questions about procedural fairness.
Allegations of Workplace Harassment and Retaliation
Counsel for the petitioner presented a compelling argument before the court, revealing that the officer had previously filed a formal complaint against her senior district programme officer under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act. Rather than addressing this serious complaint through proper channels, the department allegedly chose to transfer her from Roorkee.
The transfer was justified on the pretext that she could potentially "influence the investigation" into the matters raised against her. However, the petitioner's legal team argued that this justification was arbitrary and unjustified, particularly since there was no adverse report or pending departmental inquiry against her at the time of the transfer decision.
Judicial Directions and Future Proceedings
In its order dated January 22, the High Court not only stayed the transfer but also issued notice to the programme officer against whom the sexual harassment complaint was filed. The court directed the state government to file a counter-affidavit, ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to present their perspectives. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing after six weeks, allowing sufficient time for proper documentation and legal preparation.
This case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by women officers in government departments when they attempt to report workplace harassment. The court's intervention underscores the importance of protecting whistleblowers and ensuring that administrative actions are not used as tools for retaliation against those who raise legitimate concerns about workplace safety and dignity.
