\®-.»•• otf'^--"" \&>^...^. v^:^gf&--" ^yS^i^' ,..-:;^^.-- ^•l>^" t^ (tf^7 /- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 WRIT PETITION fSVNO. j j Lf OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ Dr. N. P. Bhargava Son of Late Mohitram Bhargava, aged .about 52 years, Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Sonhat, District Koriya (C.G.). VERSUS >'' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Collector, District Koriya (C.G.). 3. ' The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). 4. Dr. O. P. Kashyap, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Katgodi, Tahsil Sonhat, District Koriya (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AFf^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUB. WMT PETmON (S) No. 114 of2010 PETmONER : Dr. N.P.Bhat^va. VERSUS RE8PONDENT8 : State ofCUhattisgarh & Ofliers. Writ Petition Under Article 226 CtfThe Constitotion (XIndia SjB: Hon'ble Shri Satfsh K. AeidhBtri, J. Present: Shri Ashok K. Shukla, Advueate fw the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Paael Lawyer for &e State/respcmdents 1 to 3. P»ALO»UE» (Passsd on 1 lm day of Jaauary, 2010) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the petitioBer, the petition is heard finally. 1. The petitianer.by tUs petition, im]»gnsthe legdity and validity oftfae arder dated 22.12.2009 (Amiexure-P/1) whareby the petitioner woridng as Block Medical OflScer at Commumty Healtfa Centre, Sonhat, Mstrict Koria, has been attached to Community Heallfa Ceatre, Janalqwr within the same dis&ict 2. Shri Shukla, leiffned counsel appeariug for Ihe petitionar aihmifs tiiat the petttioner was woricing as Block Medical Offieer, Sonhat withgreat sincerity and honesty. However, <MI Ifae basis of a^tatton ®fIfae relatives of deceased aamely Vijay Kashl, who was ten^il to ttie Commuaity Health Ceatre, Sonhat, ^ed duri^g 1be couise of tiie treatment given by the petitioner, the p^itioner has beea atteded to jeommumty Health Centoe, Jaaakpur. Shri Shukla fiudier aibmits Ifaat tte oider of attaehment is contraiy to the cirailar dated 4.6.2001 (Annexure P/3). It is fiutfaer conteaded IhM Ifae petitioner iaay be transferred but he cannot be attached ia view ofthe saidcircular. ^l v 3. I have heard learaed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner, perused the pleadings and Ifae documente appended tfaereto. 4. With regard to contention oftfae petitioner that the transferorder has been passed on the yound ofagitation oftiie relatives ofthe deceased is concemeij, jMinciple oflaw on this issue is well settled that iftha'e are certain complamts against an employee without holding any ffliquiiy, the transfer of sueh employee can be made in the public iitferest as well as in administrative exigeney. Qn the similar issue, the Supreme Court, in Union oflndia and another v. Janardhatt Debancith & another', held as under: "14. The aUegati<Mis niade against ffae rspondeuts are of serious flatute, md flie . eonduct attributwl is certauriy unbeeoming. Whefher Ihere was any uiisbehaviour is a question wfaich can be gone into in a departmaatal {K'oceediag. For tfae piuposes of effecting a transfw, the questi<Mi ofholding an enquiry to find out iriie&er IfaCTfi was misbehaviour or conduct unbeeommg of an employee is unnecessary aad what is needed is the prinaa facie satis&ctioa of the auttaority coacemed <m 1he contempwary rq>orts ahout the occun-enee complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by leamed counsel for the respandeats, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon Ifae very puipose oftransfemng an employee in public iirterest or exigeiicies ofadministration to enfor<»decarum and ensure probrty would get fiiistrated. The questioa whether Ifae respondeats coutd be trausferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to eonsider dq>aiding upon the admmistrative necessities and Ifae eident of solution for the (nnblems feced by the administration." 5. It-is fiirther well-settled that transter is an incKlence of service and tt is ~ for the employer to dedde asto where a particular offieer/employee be posted, keepiag in view public inta-est as well as admimsbrative * (2004)43cc 245 ^c .16^^ exigency. This Court has lunited jurisdiction to mteEfere with the traiisfer matter, except in tfie eases ofproved malaflde, non-eompetance of authority passing the transfer order and not being in conf<Minity •mth the roles and regulations. The petttioner/employee canaot be panmtted to rema.m at one place lorever. Under the provisioas ofsaviee rules, employer has all Ifae powers to post aa eniployee at a particular plaee in view ofpublic interest aad adnunistrative exigency. (See EfJtayappa v. State qfTamfl Nadu cnd cawthev1, Shilpi Bose ffufrs.) and others v. State ofBihar & anothei^, State cfMf. and cmother v. S.SXov.rv amjl others andAfoM MasoodAhmadv. State qfU.P. & Other^). 6. In ChiefCommercialManager, StMtth Central Railwcy, Secutiderabad & Others v. G. Ratnam & Others, the Supreme Court observed as under: "20. Its well settled that Ihe CSentral Oovemment or the State Govemment can gh?e almBri^rative , iastructions to its servanfe h((w to act in oertain circumstances; butthat will notmake suCh iastructions ^atutory mles wluch are justiciabte in cataia cu-cumstances. to order fliat sueh executi-ve instructions havethe farce ofstatutory rote, itmustbe sfaown that &ey have beea isaied eafbsr under ths authority e<aiterred on the Central ©ovannieutor ttie State Govetamait. by scane statute or uada- some provisions of tiie Constitutioa providing fhaefOT. Therefore, evan if Ihere has been any breaeh of snA executive instructions that does not eonfer any ri^rt oa any meniber oftfaa public to ask for a writ against Ihe Goveniment by a petition un<te Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia." 7. Further, the Supreme Court in Aitports Auffiority oflndia v. jKafeev Ratan Pandey & Other/, held tiiat "In a matter of tracsfer of a govenunart employee, scope rfjudicial rewew is limited and Ae Hi^i Court wodld not 2 1974 (4) SCC 3 3 (1991)8upp 2 SCC 659 4(1995)3SCC270 s (2007) SSCC 150 6 (2007) 8 SCC 212 7 (2009)83cc 337 '-< interfere witfa an order of transfer li^rtly, be it at iaterim stage or final hearing. This is so because the eourts do not substftute their wm deeisioa in Ifae matter oftranster", 8. Even otiierwise, there is no challenge to the impupied transfer order on any other pemiissible legal grounds as afoiestated, warrantn^ interfa-ence witti the Smpugned transfer order. I &il to understaad the ditference between attachment and transter. There is not mucfa ditference betweCTi attachmfiBt and tomsfer. In case ofattachment.the ofBcer/employee is posted in the office of some senior ofBcer, but in case of transto, he may be posted at a place where he can w<wk independently. Cta a legal issue, it does not make much difference warranting mterference by this Court If the prtitionet feals tfiat tfae unpugned teansfer/attadiment wder prejudiees his service, apia-^n-iate order oftransfer may be passed by the rospondent aaifhacities keeping in view administrative exigeney. 9. For the reasons as afbrestated.lfae petition is disniissed at tfae motian stageitselt —— - SATISH K. AGNIHOTM \ Judge Amit