IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 5814 of 2010 Reserved on: 19.10.2010 Date of decision: 20.10.2010 Ramesh Chand … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. . For the petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner by means of this petition has laid challenge to the order Annexure P-7 dated 15.09.2010 whereby he has been deployed at PRS Tissa for further duties. 2. The petitioner is working as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Communication and Technical Services (here-in-after referred to as CTS) of the Police Department. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he had not reported for undergoing basic law course at PTC Daroh from 16.5.2009 to 30.5.2009 by procuring a false medical certificate showing that he was unwell on 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 14.5.2009. It was also alleged that on the one hand the petitioner had obtained such a false certificate and on the other hand he attended a political meeting on 17.5.2009 at Hartu Mata Temple. These inquiry proceedings culminated in an inquiry report and issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why penalty be not imposed upon him. 3. The petitioner filed CWP No.5600 of 2010 which has been decided by separate judgement of date in which this Court has set-aside the inquiry proceedings on the ground that the Inquiry Officer, being a witness to the inquiry proceedings, could not have heard the matter. However, liberty has been reserved to the State to appoint a fresh inquiry officer and to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings from the date when Shri Lal Singh, Inspector, who was also a witness, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. 4. The allegation of the petitioner is that in CWP No.5600 of 2010 notice was issued on 9.9.2010 on which date an order was also passed that before passing final order permission from the Court shall be obtained. The petitioner alleges that taking umbrage to this order and to the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court the respondents passed an order deploying the petitioner at a remote corner of the State i.e. Tissa in Chamba District. 3 5. The petitioner alleges that he has been transferred on account of legal malafides and it is also alleged that in terms of the guidelines laid down by the respondents a police official against whom a departmental inquiry has been initiated should not be normally transferred to any other place till the inquiry is completed. The petitioner also submits that he has no interest in staying at Shimla and he may be posted to Rajgarh or Bilaspur where posts of his level are lying vacant. The last argument is that the petitioner is suffering from a spinal injury and it was not possible for him to serve in remote area like Tissa. 6. The stand of the State is that the transfer has not been actuated by malafides. According to the respondents one Shri Rajinder Singh Gularia, ASI in CTS had filed CWP No. 4069 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court on 16.5.2010 with a direction to take action on the representation of Shri Gularia within a period of one month. As a result of the acceptance of the representation of Shri Gularia it was decided to deploy the petitioner at Tissa vide order dated 15.9.2010. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner had been working in the CTS since the year 1996 when he was employed as constable. Except for a short period of nine months when he remained posted at Udaipur (Lahaul and Spiti) the petitioner had served 4 at Shimla throughout this period. It is also averred that Tissa is sensitive area bordering Jammu and Kashmir and the petitioner is qualified in Cipher work and hence it was decided to deploy him at Tissa but remained under the control of respondent No.3. 7. No employee has a right to be remained posted in a particular place for his entire service. As pointed out above the petitioner except for a short period of nine months remained posted at Shimla. He cannot claim that he should remain posted at Shimla throughout his career. In any event the impugned order is not an order of posting but an order of deployment. In a uniformed service like the Police every police official is expected to obey the orders of transfer. The petitioner as per his own showing has been found fit to join duty by the medical board on 26.5.2009. There is no material on record to show that thereafter his condition has worsened and he cannot serve at Tissa. 8. As far as the allegations of malafides are concerned, no specific malafides are alleged against any person. It is only alleged that the respondents are acting on account of legal malafides. This contention cannot be accepted. Even legal malafides will have to be attributed to some person and if the petitioner alleges that any person is acting malafide in ordering 5 his transfer then the said person has to be arrayed as a respondent in his private capacity also. Even otherwise, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case that the deployment order is the result of malafides whether legal or otherwise. True it is that normally the person against whom inquiry is being conducted should not be transferred as per the guidelines. However, the very same guidelines lay down that the inquiry should normally be conducted within three months. If the inquiry proceedings continue for more than a year, like in the present case, then the delinquent employee cannot claim that he should not be transferred. 9. In view of the above discussion, the petition is rejected with no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the respondents shall ensure that the petitioner is given adequate leave to attend the inquiry proceedings and defend the same in a proper manner. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 20th October, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.