@ m < 03 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITIOH NOJ^C/2005 PBTITIONER ^ Vinod Pandey, S/o late Shri C.L. Pandey, aged about 49 years, working as O.T. Operator, District Hospital, Durg, R/o. Hospital Colony, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS L. V State of Chhattisgarh, ^y ^l,^?y<..^ ^.•y>^ ^'' ..••'**', .••-y>^ .^'.^ yi-l 2. Through- the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Inspector General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur (C.G.). WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WMTS, ORDER/ORDERS, QR/AND DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI, OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NATURE. m XI-HC-22 3Tr^T^T f<^i<=h3:n^r $h^icb^ri?cT V. TST r<ii*<io*i, ^Tn'Mli<o, fc)di^^< 3TT^?T HIHcTfShHlch ^rq?T^ ^^:^^^ 14- 3n^T!^<TT^K^f?cT 29-4-2005 Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, couns^! Shri Akhi! Agrawai, P.L. for Tne petstioner has preferre|d order Annexure-P/1 dated 11' transferred to Kanker. The case of the petitoner | as Operatlon Theatre Operator 2005, on the compiaint of Amar| caught red handed whiie taking sald raid of the Anti Corruptioji Rs.100/- was aiso found in pos^ there was no compiaint agains gjven to him by Dr.Damie'^sr brir has boen transferred on tho adt tran^fer te vvithoyt any rhyme or petitioner, therefore, transfer be 1 have heard learned petjtion. Leamed counse! for the |^et Corruption Buroau the petitio^er whereas, he was not invoived in| Rs.100/- which was recovered to bring soms items from the canfe^ Having heard learned petition: Perusal of impugned ^r frbm <=hl^f<n41v1 iTHT^Tf^fe^t <t^^l< ^3^^T3T1^T uns^! fortho petitionor. ) the State/rospondente, this writ petition being aggrleved by the if Aprii 2005 whereby he has been |is that prior to this order he was working |n the District Hospitai, Durg. On 10.2- Singh Dhritiahre, Dr. Raj Kumar Damie liilega! gratification of Rs.500/- and in the Bureau Department currency note of )s^ession of the petitoner herein whereas, the petStioner, that Rs.100/- note was some items from the canteen. Now, he ^iso of the Anti Corruption Buroau, His reaaon and the i^ prejudjolai to the stayed. CQUilisel for the petitioner on admission o? this l^etitloner argued that on the advise of Anti has boen transferred unnecessarISy |taking iilegai gratification and the note of the petitioner was given by Dr. Damie teen. coi|nse} for the petitioner, i have perused the rder Annexure-P/1 shows that Dr. Damie XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T ^TT^^TT^T T^^f?cT $h*41<t)^T Baive ^^ ^f.^ 'K&y ^ S^ -^ww^, ^ww, fGtdl^^< 3ll^l s?l<sb W^lT^rRT^ """'""""""" W^ 200 ir^ 3n^r^<TTaiK^r •&• Bur^au has been transferred to Kanket transforred and tho copy of t^ Genera! of Anti Corruption incident of service and uniess -ground or contrary to any rul^, chaiienge the transfer order. At this stage, Mr. Bhatia| to make a detailed representati| to decide the same to which objection. Havjng heard iearned c<| to the facts and circumstance^ make a detailed representationl 10 days from today and in| ropresentation of the petitionor of reeeipt of the repre^entatlorl the petitloner in an objective With the dlrsctjon afores^id Consequentiy. M.(W.)P.| stand disposed of. Parties are Simiiariy, the petitioner has also been te order has beon sont to the inspector it is settied iaw that the transfer is an ^nd until the transfer is made on maiafide jn that case an empioyee is entltied to ohi^t<n41Ti ^i^^iT^'teT^t'<Ri«i< ^3:rf^T3TI^T Isubmjts that the petjtioner may be allowed bn to respondent No.1 and he be dlrected counsel for respondent No.1 has no l^unsei for the petltoner and having regard of the case, the petitioner is ailoweti to 1 before respondent No.1 wjthin a period of turn respondent No.1 wili decide the tA/ithin a period of ons month from the dats after con^idering aii the pointe rate^d by In accordance vvlth iaw, |iid, the petitton stands disposed of. |No.1316/2005 and i.A. No.3263/2005 also madner entjtled for cetlified copy ofthis order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^fe^)