HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELA$PUR Hcn’ble Shri $atish K. Agnihotri, J. Single Eench PETRIGNER Sheiku Ram Dewangan aged abeut 57 years, 8/0 Chohal Ram Dewangan R10 Near Sharda Temple W.N0.38, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon [CG] Vs. State of Chhattisgarh: through the Secretary, Depadment cf Revenue, D‘KS. Bhawam Marrtralaya, Raipur {CG} Collector, Rajnandgaon {CG} sub Divisiona}, OfMer The. Mohia, Diatrict Rajnandgaon [CG] RESPON§ENTS WP. q'S) No.5264 6f 2006 reser2t: Shri Vinay Pandey, counse! for the petitioner‘ Shri Sushi! Dubey, Govt, Advocate fer the State! respondents Learned ooumsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Patwari at Patwari Haika N012, Teheil Ambagrah Chowki, District Rajnandgaon from where he was transferred and posted to Pit-{No.7, Dadhutoia in 'the same tahsii and district, by order dated 14.092006 (P45). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further ontends that the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner administrative exigency. is based on the ground that the impugned order was passed after revocation of suspension vide order dated 18.022005 and, thereafter, within 3 months, the impugned order of transfer has been passed. it is further contended that the petitioner was piaced under suspension, in view of pendency of a criminai case against him under the provisions of Section t3 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which finaiiy resuited in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 24.052006. ORAL ORDER (Sassed on 2“a Aprii, 2007) ? c Consequently, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and petitioner was posted at Patwari Haika No.12. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents has fiied return on behalf of the respondents, stating that the transfer is made purely clue to administrative reason and in public interest. The petitioner has joined the new place of posting, therefore, nothing survives in this petition The petitioner has not established that the impugned order has been passed with a mala tide intention 3. The contention of the petitioner with regard to the fact that the impugned order was not passed in administrative exigency is without any basis and deserves to be noted only for rejection. An employee after revocation of suspension order can be transferred and posted to any other place in public interest. in the instant case, the petitioner was reinstated after revocation of suspension on 23.06.2006 and the impugned order was passed on 14.09.2006. The petitioner has not raised any other ground. Thus, the impugned transfer order needs no interference by this Coutt in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the'Constitution of lndia. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs, , Sd/— Satish K. Agnihott‘i Judge Indu r