_____________________________________________________ Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1504 of 2009. Dated of Decision: July 8, 2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bal Mukand Shashtri. ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta,J (oral) : The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the order Annexure P-2, whereby his headquarter during the period he has been placed under suspension has been changed from Shimla to Rampur. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is working as a Shastri in Government Middle School Cherri in Shimla. A criminal case was lodged against him on the complaint of one Smt. Lalita Sharma under Section 325, 341 and 506 of the Indian penal code and registered FIR No.44/09 in Police Station Dhalli. The petitioner applied for the anticipatory bail and this - 2 - bail was granted to him. On the basis of this criminal complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order Annexure P-1 dated 31st March, 2009. His headquarter was fixed at Shimla during the period of his suspension. Thereafter, vide impugned order, his headquarter was fixed at Block Elementary Education Office at Rampur. When the matter came up before this court on 15th May, 2009, the State was directed to file a short reply and status-quo regarding the headquarters of the petitioner was directed to be maintained. Short reply has been filed. A perusal of this short reply shows that the headquarter of the petitioner has been changed only on the complaint of one Shri Jagdish Dass Sharma. In rejoinder, filed by the petitioner, it is stated that this Jagdish Dass Sharma is in fact the person on whom the injury was allegedly inflicted by the petitioner which resulted in lodging of the FIR No.44/09. This is the only ground put forward for shifting the headquarters of the petitioner from Shimla. We fail to understand how the headquarters of the petitioner could have been shifted just on the basis of the complaint. The criminal case has still to be decided. The legal process will take its own time. Obviously, the relation of the petitioner and Jagdish Dass Sharma must be strained because of the criminal proceedings. Changing the headquarter of the petitioner only on the complaint of Jagdish Dass Sharma, - 3 - without any other material to support the same, is totally unjustified. Such action is arbitrary and illegal. In view of the above discussion, we find that the order Annexure P-2 is not legally sustainable and is actuated on account of the complaint made by Jagdish Dass Sharma, which is unsupported by any other evidence except the bald complaint of Jagdish Dass Sharma. The same is accordingly quashed and it is directed that during his period of suspension, the headquarter of the petitioner be retained at Shimla. C.M.P.No.2792 of 2009. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, this application stands disposed of. Stay order is vacated. (Deepak Gupta) Judge (Surinder Singh) Judge July 8, 2009. (Pds)