PETlTlONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION s No. @m 12010 VERSUS (I 1 RESPONDENTS 2. / ,, P.C. Rai S/o. Late Shri B.C. Rai, aged about— 51 years, Currently posted at Green Hunt Operation, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through:— Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Chairman, Police Establishment Board, Raipur‘ Chhattisgarh / Inspector General of Police (Admn.), Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5.“ Operation), Chhattisgarh, gaiPtw (Obi) Inspector General of Police (Naxal ' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSlTUTlON OF INDIA / 3. H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B§LASPUR WRQT PETH‘mN (S) NG2041 OF 2010 (Wrét Petition under Artacle 226 of the Constitution of lndia) Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agmho’tri, J. Present :- Ms Naush'ina Afrin Aii, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V‘V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General with Shri MP3 Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate fer the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 30‘ day of Aprn, 2010) Heard learned counsel fcr the parties. 1. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Urla, District Raipur. Without completion of two years of posting at Police Station, Urla, by order dated 7-1 1-2009 (Annexure — Pi1) the petitioner was transferred from Urlag Raipur to Dantewada, which is against the provisions prescribed under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Police Act,’ 2007 (for short “Act, 2007”) r 2. Section 14 of the Act, 2007 provides that in case of admihistrative exigency if the same is recorded in writing or on the request of the employee, the bar of two years may be titted. in the case on hand, learned counsei for the petitioner submits that there ts no request on the part of the petitioner and if, it was a case of administrative exigency there was nothing recorded in writing stating reasons for transferring the petitioner after taking recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 200?. 4. Ms Naushina1 further submits that being aggrieved by the impugned transfer order; the petitioner preferred an appeai under PETITIONER P.C. Rai Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & wherS the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. 2007 to the Potice Estabiishment Board on 12-1 1-2009. 5. Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act, 2007 provides for consideration and disposal of representation within a period of 90 days from the date of order. 90 days have iapsed; the Poiice Establishment Board has not passed any order. it appears that the provisions of the Act, 2007 has been violated at two places Le. firstly; white passing the transfer order without assigning the reasons and secondiy; by not considering the appeal! representation within 90 days, which is statutory prescribed limit. At this juncture, Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing with Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer, submits that the pending appeallrepresentation of the petitioner, before the Police Establishment Board, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of 14 days. 7. ln View of foregoing, without examining the merits of the case, the Direotor General of Potice/resp‘ondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the pending appeal/representation of the petitioner within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made ciear that till disposal of the appeal/representation, the impugned order dated 7-1 1-2009 (Annaxure — P11), passed in respect of the petitioner, shall not be given effect to. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri l Judge Gcwri