-\. / .i—-.-.- siftsRj F I'lENCI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARHl WRIT^ETITIQN HO./'T^S OF 2006 PETITIONER ^"..•'l ^&/ -^w /^cy / .^y •s'' ••f / ^ ,:? / -•%•' ^f ^ .^--._- RESPQNDENTS R. K. Sharma, S/o Late Shri R. S. Sharma, aged About 54 years, Occupation - service, at Present posted as the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Urdu Academy, Office at 7/381, Fazal Complex, Baijnathpara, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 'l. . ; ^CQP^ r^i^^^ 2. CLE^ to A.G. B&AS1PUR ^i^^>^ :aS»a/i'l?5». te^ "'j! "l-clJ State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of SC/CT Development, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Adhyaksha, Chhattisgarh Urdu Academy, 7/381, Fazal Complex, Baijnath- para, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE -226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: The petitioner above-named most respectfully submits as under: ^ BS wss:^' KS: XI-HC-22 sn^i^i! ^iRTsniw wiN'gfia ] . %> -s^ ^wvPi, ^W , wnwv. ^"<F^- if^foi. •wraf'9'fezlifsHgR ^•aipgiisn^T 10.5.2006 5hri MonJrtdra Shriavasl Adyocate for ths.pstitioner. Shri c.K. Beriwai, by. Acivj •ava, 5'c. Adv. wil+i Shri Afroz Khon, Acivj. Sen. foc raspencient Nb.l. Shri Roshan Dubey, ASvo^ateror respondent No,2. Heard. Sy the instant petition 1fie petitioner has que^tionea the tegaiity and propriety of the order dat^d 23.3.2006 possed by respondent Ne.! wharsby the petitionsr has r'ept^-riated to his parent department. The case of the petition^r is Ifcct he Mnis working on the post of Se"!or Leeturer in the &sp^rtment of Tribai Welfare, &OYt. of Lhhat+isga-'-h. Whiie the petiti^ner was continuing an the saia post, with the consent cf Ths petiTions;', AfSld he was sent on depuTarjon tc 1+se Urdu idsmv on ths Dost of Secreirary vids order-dstea 25.10.2005 sni3 he joinedon fne said post on 27.1p.2005 in eompiiance of tiie Sovemmenfs order. Wh"e discharging th^ duties, ths petstioner forwarded tne necessary documents for peifusa! of the State So'/ernment, whieh aiinoyed respondenT No.2 ar.d fherefore, she ac.rnsa sevare dispieasure agtsinst the petitioner' wid sc^lded hiiri as tq *'hy he sent ai'j such informatiori to the Sovemm^nt, On 31.12.2005 Q meeting. of the Executive Committee was hyid whsrsm sil the members passsd resoiution againgt rssponcient |kJo.2. Fyrther cqss of.the pstitioner is [tfr^'^fe^ ^ s&.w^Si^.kh^^^^ XI-HC-22 sn^r^iT Wi^i siS^t wss'eSss "s^ ^l<<lc!q, ®Ti1y'iS,'fsi<ni«ll< 3)1^1 •TOIIWditd ~ 2^' notice of tha Soysrnment a!l shocteci to know t+iat an o''del +l<<?i')'ifl-i im?Tt""? fet£tTi^ZR ^ 3ipgii3n^i that h®was peffor'ming his ^iuty on•the podt of Secrstary with fuli devotion, sincerity <md satjsfi^ctwn, he •s duty bound to bring to the ths relevant "nformations, howsver, hs p- has been passed on 28.2.2006 by which the petitioner hcs been repatrjlated to his pcrent depGr'trnent. Normaiiy *''.-. . • . .! the tenure of deputation post is four years byt the petitioner ho.s been repatr'ated to hi.3 pgrent d^par'tme-nt within a short span of period withou? there beinfl any complc^nt agcir'st him. Rseiy of r^soondsnt No.l is that somehow the petitionsr and resGorident No.2 couid not wdck with cordici reSutions and cooDeration, ' . . .!- - • ' therefore, th®$oyemment d^cia'ed to repgtnate fte petitioner to hid par^nt depar'tment. j I hc'/eheard leqr-ned coikisei for The parties. ' Learnsd .Sr. Counss! ^or •rtis petitionsr submitf-ed that •tiie setitioner has been repatria^-ed onfy on aceount of displeasure of rsspondent No.Z ond if tiTS oryer is aitowed to exist, thsn thi^ may coms in '+tts way of his career and nlcy be considered as a stigma •rfiat why he 1 ••• . hcs bsea repatricTed wil+ijh su^h e short spis," of pe"lod. IFI the matter of Sto+e ^f Madhyo Pi-odesh and otherg V. Ashok &sshfflukh and another wporl^d in (1988) 3 Sypnme Ceurr Cases 503 the Hon'bie Apex Court heid tifect; [^ ^s^ w Es^ .XI-HC-22 '3^g^iraRH'^TteiTre,;(««3i<i'i<>' OT^T'^T T'W^i sw^sv ?hHicti tff??l 3TR(?Ttra^ WWfTWqra? "W^ 200 Untess the bias or sstablished resatriath su&stantive oost 'm th tsrmed as arb'trary o CoRStitution of India." m^iofide against ths authority is i|i or'der by the depeu'tment to 4 parent departmept cannot be yioiative of ArtScis 14 of -me Stmilarty in the mctter of iCunal Na; reported in (2000) 5 Suprwne Court held that: ajsda Vs. Union of Xadia and another Qpurt Caso 362 the Hon bie" Apex "SepuTationist has 'no or to claim permsi' aepffl'TmenT, untess eovered by u statutory Again m the matter of Ra+iiai B Syjarat and others reported in A +T!S Hon'ble Ayex. Court he!d thot; •ight l-o contipue on deputcrfon jent absoretion in borrowma f\is penmCT'enT aE'sorpTion is iDrovision." . Sovt. servant on derft present cadre at any any right To be absorb< inererore, an employee ccn t>e re| of bias and malQfide agalnsT ?he petri-ioner has been i'epati'iated by Qllegation against the Snte Sovern| As fa'- as tht cspprehension • \ the repJy,Qf rsspondent Mo.l-Sta-t)e ^iii[<n4f';( 'RHcTT ^ ^Sf ^\W! '•^siPtpTsn^ &onj snd others Vs. ER 1950 Supreme-Court 1132 dedutation r ccn be reverTed To his 1-ime- Sueh servant du not qet ;d on •riie deputatioR post." atr'iated at any time, if np aiiegation uthority is maas. Ir, This case, The •he State Sovernment ond there is no wnt regarding bias or mdtefide. of the petitioner is concerned, fro"! it is evident ftat the petitionsr has [«^fi3^ 'sr -y XI-HC-22 • ^ST'^Tpn^PI. afll^'is. faro'My T o *1!*<MI ShliR) ^^at' 311^1^1 K.-tt* sf6si 5b^<i<t) ^litT sn^TWn^iT'g^ti /u, T '^'v^^ ^ w^ besn repatriated onJy becquse the and petitioner were noT cor'dial, it (^i^!<l41'T ITR^f ^ fS"[5} '^RSR ^? •apgtf aii^i.. Ireiations between resoondent No.2 has nowhsre been mentioned 1tiat rsia+ions were not cordiai on acc4up.t of the conduct of petitionsr, Ipetitioner appsars +o be unfounded. l&veiled ageinst The peTitioner, thet'efore, the apprehension of the Moreover, soffie ailecifitions werd therefore, an enquiry was instituted against him daid same was conducted by the Executive Offjcer of G.S. Sltate Haz Committes. The Executiye Officsr submiTted hjs reporT on 1^4.2006 and perusa! of whidi shows thot the petitioner has been exonei^ated from ail 1ti®char9es ieveiied by respondent No.2. Therefore, therelis no record to show the misconduct of th®petjtioner in any way and tl(ie repatriation of the petitioner has been made for administra'rive reasorjs uuithout any s+igmaon his se.rvice-. In view ef tfte above, rsbaTriaTion of the petitione" !S sn adrRinistrativs exiosr.cv and tt dois not resuire intsrferBiice bv this Court. With thsaforesaid, the pstit on stands dispossd of. I.A. No.3812/06 aiso stands ^isposed of. Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^•^feq. '< •<'