mwmm $0 m§ni$ ................................. '... W200 3mmm snést ‘ (Single Bench; Hon'ble : Mr. Jus‘ri'ce Dhirendra Mishra) 'Wma'Wm am%nanéet zxt PETITIONER Vs REsPONDENTs ' PETITIONER RESPONDENTS mam (W) W.P. lsl No.1702/2003 (Pefi‘rion U/A 22 :6 of ConsTi’ruTion of India) Qirmal Kumar Moseé, S/o Shri Lafe Prakash Moses, Aged abom‘ 57 years, Posfed aT Office of C.M,O., Heah‘h Officer (C.G.), R/o Q'orapara, Raipur, Tahsii and Distric’r Raipur (CG). 1. Sf‘aTe Shri Through: Sq‘crefar’y, Healfh and Family Welfare Dqpff, Manfralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C<§)] of Chhgffisgar‘h, Lef Medicai Officer/Heah‘h Officer, 3. S ri V.K. 5/0 Lafe Shri B.P. Rawm‘, aged ab uf 52 years, presently posted a‘r S mudayik Swasfh Kendra Mohla, Dis’rric’r R ‘nandgaon (CG). 6375/2007 .6 of Consfifu’rion of India) Shri Nirmal Kumar Moses, S/o Shri Lafe Pmka h Moses,’Aged about 57 years, Posfed of O fice of C.M.O., HeaHh Officer gC‘G.) R/o u Through: S crefory, Health and Family Welfare W.P. s No. (PeTiTion U/A orapara, Raipur, Tahsil and Disfr'icf Raip (CG). 1. 5 afe Vs‘ of Chho’rfisgarh, A 2 m mqi$ “a 200 am m (meta) mew-I W- aan mslm mmW mam WWWWWW ,L.~ aiwmw Depft, Manfralaya, D.K.$. Bhawan, Raipur‘ (CG) ‘ ‘ .Chief Medical Officer/Heal'rh Officer, Raipur (CG) Present: Ms.$ofia Khan Advocafe for fhe petifioner. Mr‘. Y. S. Thakpr, Dy. GOVT. Advocafe for The S‘ra‘re. Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for "esponden’r No.3. _ 1 1 _ 1 1 .2008 Heard. W.P. (S) No.1702/08 & W.P (s) No.6375/07 filed by pe‘rh‘ioner‘ Shri Nirmal Kumar' MoSes are being disposed of by This common order. ’ Grievance of fhe pe’ri’rioner is 1‘hm‘ ’rhe pe+ifioner was ‘rr'ansferred vide order daied. 14.6.2007 (ynnexure r54) from c.H.c., Mama, Dim. Rajnandgaon fo The office of Chief Medical & Heal’rh Officer, Raipur in place of respondem‘ No.3 here n, howeverffhe Transfer order has been subsequenfly cancelled on 7.2.2E008 Though by fhaf fime ’rhe pe‘rifioner had already complied wifh ’rhe fransfer order and joined aT Raipur on 22.6.2007 vidd Annexhre P-7. . Shrii V.K. S/o Lo’re Shri B.P. Rawaf, aged aboU’r 52 years, presenfly posfed af Samudayik Swas’rh Kendra Mohla, Dis’rricf Raj nandgaon (CG). ' a‘ r ‘ mam (W) mm «1%6 ms! mm, WCW CFQ\ W §ni$ .. I E 200 mmwww asWanéat rejoinder iT has been sTaTed Th - order dated 22.5.2008 (Annexu non—compliance of The Governme Learned counSeI for The peTiTion and passing of sTaTu ' applica‘rion for Transfer on mu The above facT The Transfer or daTed 7.2.2008. Since The above facT is peTiTioner and since The Tran. passed on his own expenses, in r‘jg/ On being asked, learned that Transfer order of Annexur wi’rh The mufual consen‘r of fhe no such consen‘r was given for 1 regard in fhe fransfer order is i 3eTiTioner submiTs ThaT The peTiTioner has Learned counsel for The also filed rejoinder To The reTurn filed by The STaTe and in The said aT The peTiTioner has been suspended vide re P-IO) for resorTing To illegal acT and for :nT's order pending enquiry. 'STaTe submiTs ThaT, afTer fiiing of The s quo order by This CourT in W.P. (s) counsel for The peTiTioner fairly sdbmi’rs e P—1 menTions ThaT The same was paSSeds; peTiTioner and respondenT No.3, however, ' he above Transfer and observdTion in This if‘r‘OheOUS. No.3692/O'7, iT w‘as revealed TTT The signaTure of respondenT No.3 in The ual basis is forged and afTer discovery of der was cancelled by The STaTe vide order noT dispuTed by learned counSel for The sfer order of peTiTioner is shown To be The considered opinion of This CourT There is no illegaliTy in c’ancellaTion of The above order o'f Transfer, which was of fabricaTed documenT erroneously paSSed on The basis ~ . WW,W;W m wm$ W 200 anésmw (3333a) mumm mm'uw‘mmn mm “1%?! straw am snammm ¢ W m” The pe'ri‘l'ioner‘ ’rhaT pe‘rifioner has given So far as the prayer of joining on 22.6.2007 aT hoipur c nd performing his du‘ries afTer joining bu’r he hos no’r been paid salary is c oncer‘ned, The same may be considered by ‘rhei'Sf‘a’re and salary may be pc iid ’ro The peTiTioner for ’rhe period which he migh’r have worked in Ti e office of C.M.O., Raipur offer due verificaTion from ’rh'e concerned so far as ’rhe argumeni concerned, no relief has been againsT The order of suspensic iniTiaTed deparTmenTal procee i allegaTions The peTiTioner may parTICIpoTe In The deporTmenTal proceeding 1rges leveled agomsT him vaTIons, The peTiTions sTond disposed of. V aced in W.P. (S) No.6375/O7 regarding suspension of The pefi'rioner is claimed by The peTiTioner in This peTiTion n, However, since The STaTe has already ' ding againsT The peTiTioner on cerTain InITIaTed againsT him for The chi WiTh The aforesaid obser A copy of This order be p