1 40 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1519/2008 [HARI RAM MEENA VS. U.O.I. & ORS.] Dated : 04.03.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr.S.K.Malik for the petitioner. ***** By this writ petition the petitioner has made a challenge to the order dated 13.04.2006 (Annex.1) and the charge sheet Annex.18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the impugned order dated 13.04.2006 the petitioner was transferred from Post Station, Jodhpur to Dog Square, Barmer. The said order was passed by incompetent authority and that too contrary to the instructions issued by the respondents themselves at Annex.3. Referring to the Annex.3 it was contended that without required training and also the consent of the employee, one cannot be transferred to Dog Square, which is ex-cadre post therefore, the impugned order of transfer was bad in law. It was urged that petitioner made a protest against the said order of transfer vide Annex.4 dated 17.07.2007 because prior to the protest made by Annex.4, the petitioner was assigned executive duties in Dog Square. So far as challenge to Annex.18, a charge sheet issued by the respondent is concerned, the same is also on the grounds as are being raised to challenge Annex.1. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the 2 petitioner and perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that the order of transfer was passed on 13.04.2006 and thereupon the petitioner joined his services without making any protest in regard to the competence of the authority to transfer him to the Dog Square or raising any other ground for making a protest to the order of transfer before joining or immediately after joining. The fact remain that petitioner continued in the Dog Square pursuant to the order Annex.1 without any protest for more than one year and three months. Thus it becomes clear that the petitioner's protest is not only delayed but is otherwise hit by the principles of estopple. Further the order of transfer was passed in the month of April, 2006 whereas Annex.3 was issued in the month of July, 2006 i.e. much subsequent to the order of transfer therefore, petitioner cannot seek benefit of Annex.3. Sameway a challenge to the charge sheet on the aforesaid ground is not tenable and otherwise this Court is not competent to interfere in the charge sheet at this stage inasmuch as petitioner would be having full opportunity to contest the charge sheet by submitting a necessary explanation and also the material to substantiate his cause but then this Court cannot look into the factual aspect of the charges levied more so a reply to the charge sheet is yet to be given by the writ petitioner. The question of competence of the authority passing the order on Annex.1 is also under challenge as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Divisional Secretary cum Commissioner RPF 3 was not competent to pass order of transfer. However, aforesaid fact is not required to be looked into for the reason that if petitioner had any grievance about the competence of th authority passing order then necessary protest should have been made either before joining of the post pursuant to the transfer order or immediately thereafter. The petitioner in this case joined the post in compliance of the order dated 13.04.2006 and not only joined but continuously worked till it seems to be found suitable by him and, therefore, only an objection against the order of transfer was made almost after a period of one year and three months by filing the representation Annex.4 dated 17.07.2007. Even in the said representation a protest to the competence of the authority has not been questioned thus virtually it is by way of writ petition that for the first time competence of the authority is being challenged after two years of order of transfer and that too at the stage when petitioner has already served with the charge sheet for his delinquency. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta