^ocf ^TPTT^ZT, u>-nl1<i<i<?, Rrtifiy wraT^TT^ 3TT^9T q^P ((icl^61<€S) ^200 3Tr^^TcpTf^Tfc^ H8n3TT^^T?CTtcP ^<TTWr^^ 3TT^$T (SinQle Bench; Hon'bl^ W.P. Flsl No.6500/2008 (Petition U/A 2 PETCTIQNER T.S. (fathare, Aged - 48 years, S/o. Late Bhukh|au Ram Pathare, Presently Working as- Assis1|ant at bistn'ct Office, C.G. State Civil Suppli Villa94- iles Vs RESPONbENTS 1. ClG H.Q. 2. The Presenl: Mr. R.K. Kesharwoni, Advocote f 24,n^2008 This is the second rouncl filed W.P. (s) No.5442/08 agai| (Annexure P-l)which was disposf respondent No.l to decide repr transfer expeditiously preferab) cbl^lfc6^1<4 +ll+loT^ f^ud ^RI^-CI^ ^ 3Tf^T 3TI^$T Mr. Justice bhirendra Mishra) 6 of Constitution of India) Corporation Limited, Raipur, R/o -Seman'ya, bistrict Raipur (CG) State Civil Supplies Corporation mited, through- its Managing Director, Bal Ashram Campus, Kachery C|iowk, Raipur (CG) General Manager (Admn), C&. State |vil Supplies Corporation Limited, Bal \|shram Campus, Kachery Chowk, Raipur ) r the petitioner. of litigation. Earlier the petitioner had i^st his transfer orderdated 26.8.2008 ^d of by this Court with a direction to the ^esentotion of the petitioner against his |y within a period of six weeks from the ,^.-5?£®^. H|;-78 ^D '^ ^wT^TRn^i, yTYI^^i<i, Rlrti^^ *11*101 SPTT^ 3n^9T q^cp (»jc|^4cgi) Wl 200 3TT^$TcI?Tf^:?tcp cT^TOT^^T^HT^ ?^HW^rf^T3TT^$T -2- date of receipt of the represer has been rejected vide order da' Mr. Kesharwani, learned argued that from bare perus< representation has been rejed been transferred on the basis o and as such, the same is punitiv< has been imposed without follo' therefore, the same is liable tl 1984 SC 115 State of U.P. and a\ I have heard learned cour The petitioner is Assist| transferred from bistrict Off| vide order dated 26.8.2008 against the above transfer o| 29.9.2008 by this Court w{ representation before the further directed to decide the| date of receipt of the represerj Respondent No.l vide it the representation of the peti1|i detailed order. In Para-2 of t| re|s cpl^fof'ft^l HFT^fff fe^St\RjttCl1< ^3Tf^T3TT^$T .r|tation. Representation of the petitioner ^ed 11.11.2008 (Annexure P-5). counsel for the petitioner vehemently of the impugned order by which the |ed it is evident that the petitioner has certain complaints by way of punishment in nature. Punishment by way of transfer ^ving the principles of natural justice ond be quashed. Reliance is placed on AIR wther Vs. Jagdeo Singhand another. ^sel fo?' the petitioner. int under the respondent No.l. He was |ce, Raipur to bistrict Office, bantewada (Ar^nexurc P-1). He filed W.P. (s) No.5442/08 'der and the same was disposed of on ^h liberty to the petitioner to file spondent No.l and respondent No.l was representation within six weeks from the I'ation. imjjugned order of Annexure P-5 has rejected ioner against his transfer to bantewada by \e impugned order it is mentioned that the :^ST^ l% f%tfoH(^78 ":'-;-t^ ^ '-.,:r-^ ^Sv^ '-«i«l««, tPT^^^Ka, Rlrtl^^ *11*101 ^^TT^ 3TT^?T q^P (<jc|ij4<g) 3V ^200 3TT^5Tcinf^:Tfcp ^HOT^^T^^rt^ t~nn'ii iiniii^ i^TT^R ^Tf^T 3TT^9T z- a^d petitioner was transferred fronji were complaints against the pe-1 from Saja Centre without permf transferred from Mahasamund his own cost. The order also the bistrict Manager's Office, post an experienced employee behaviour and work of the pe1 Office bantewada. In the matter of Jagdeo special emoluments as Station the discharge of his duties as post of Station House Officer,) roll and he was transferred to and not as a Station House OffJ Section 7 (d) of the Police Act, made by way of punishment/as into play. The Hon'ble Apex Courti|i Vs. Janardhan bebnath and Para-12 has held thus;- District burg to Mahasamund as there ^itioner that he was continuously absent |ssion, however, the petitioner was again l-o Head Quarter Finance t)epartment at m4ntions that there is shortage of staff in bantewada and therefore, with a view to considering the complaints against the litioner, he was transferred to bistrict cpi<ifc«y€l<i^i+K^V^'fe^t^Rl^l^ ^3Tf^T31T^?T >ingh (supra) the respondent was drawing Iflouse Officer, he was found negligent in consequence he was reverted from the |misconduct entry was made in character ffatepur Police Station as a second officer Jcer. In these circumstances referring to 1861 it was held that when the transfer is (n the instant case, Section 7 would come ih the matter of Union of India <& others c^iother reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245 in ^- "^^I^C-78 >^/ ^SET ^i^io^, y^1ti<i<o, R<>>i<<iy'< *ii*irtia?'n^ 3TT^$Tc^Tf^TTcy} cT2n3TT^$T^Ht<^ ]n~ iiiu_ -3TT^?T q^cp (^c|ij6|<g) ^200 I^TW: ^rf^T 3:n^$T -L(- 12. That brings us to th4 other question as to whether the use of the expression <ILJ before the transfer. Strc counsel for the responde J'agdish Mitter v. Union contend that whenever cpl^fc+^l^ *ii+ioT^'f^t\Fji^i1< ^>3Tf^T3IT^?T Indesirable" warranted an enquiry ng reliance was placed by learned hts on a decision of this Court in \>f India^l^ p. 456, para 21) to there is a use of the word "undesirable" it casts a stjigma and itcannot be done without holding d regular enquiry^ substance. The said case| The submission is clearly without relates to use of the expression "undesirable" in an ord^r affecting the continuance in service by way of dischai application to the facts nature and extent of courts/tribunals in a ca; stigma or constitutes oni very much depend upon 1 order and as to whether conditions — status, serv same yardstick, norms or| categories of cases. Trai adverse impact or visit tl^ consequences,are not rei |'ge. The decision has therefore no |of the present case. The manner, exercise to be undertaken by ^e to adjudge whether it costs a ^ by way of punishment would also he consequences flowing from the it adversely affected any service |ice prospects financially — and the standards cannot be applied to all lisfers unless they involve any such ^e persons concerned with any penal |uired to be subjected to same type IC-78 \5v^^WW<i, U>'X1l1<(1<ICp, Rirtl'd^ *l 1*101 ffiTT^ 3TT^?T q^cp (I3clt3SES) ^> ^200 3TT^^TZpTf^ftcF crar3n^?Taw<p ^cn^^rf^r w^^i -r- anld of scrutiny, approach dismissal, discharge, rev^ latitude should be left v^ enforce discipline, decenj;y which are indisputably es^ service and meet untow^ard ensure smooth functionincj In the matter of State another reported in (2004) 7 held that the transfer of an| initiation of disciplinary procee^ Public Service Commission cann|: particularly when the same is a|l no malfides were shown by the unless an order of transfer i< exercise or stated to be in vi^ any such transfer, the courts cji such orders as a matter of authorities substituting th^i employer/management, as agai^ administrative exigencies of th^ cpl<4l<(y^Ti ^i+ic'>T^ fe^St ^FJI^I^ ^3Tf^T3ff^$T assessment as in the case of ^rsion or termination and utmost , ijith the department concerned to i^y and decorum in public service |ential to maintain quality of public administrative exigencies to of the administration. bf U.P. and another Vs. Siya Ram and $CC 405 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has employee to a non-working post after ings which was not approved by the State )t be considered to be punitive in nature leged to be on administrative ground and wployee. It has been further held that shown to be an outcome of mala fide >lation of statutory provisions prohibiting tribunals normally cannot interfere with routine, as though they were appellate ir own decision for that of the st such orders passed in the interest of service concerned. -78 v^< ^Ss^ 'dwl 'r«i<4lrt«,tPTTl1<i<i<o, R!rtl'<iy<( *llic)l^m^ ••••———•••••••"••••••..•.•.... ^200 3TT^?T ^fSf) (^c|[^4cg) 3H^5TclTT^ich ^TT3^$TfCTfcF X. ?^TT^R;?Tf^T3n^$T ^- ordlBr e|n If the facts of the preS( principles laid down in the af< petitioner has not imputed respondents. The impugned been transferred on account requirement of experienced Dantewada. The alleged compl< would not result into consequen< visit the petitioner with any same it cannot be inferred that| in nature. On the basis of the afor4 to be dismissed and is accorcj stage itself. No order as to co^- pe|nal <pi^fw^lTi ^i^^V^fel<? ^Ryi^K ^> 3Tf^T 3TT^^T |nt case are examined in the light of the 'esaid judgment, it is evident thaf the t\alaft'des against the officers of the clearly shows that the petitioner has [of administrative exigency as there is |nployee/officer in the Oistrict Office. ints referred to in the impugned order e which may involve any adverse impact or consequences and on the basis of the the impugned transfer order was punitive said analysis the instant petition deserves ingly hereby dismissed at the admission t-s. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge