LPA No.277 of 2011 2.8.2011 Present: M/s Rajiv Rai and Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Mr.J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Dr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Appellant, respondent No.4, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, Headteacher and Smt. Pawna Kumari, are present alongwith relevant record. 2. In terms of order dated 30.4.2011 Yadvender (appellant herein), who was working as JBT in G.P.S., Shala-Nishar, was transferred to G.P.S. Sakroha (Balh) vice Smt. Teja Sharma (respondent No.4 herein). 3. Smt. Teja Sharma, assailed the said order of transfer in CWP No. 2958 of 2011, which was listed before the Division Bench of this Court on 5.5.2011, when the following order was passed:- “Notice dasti to the fourth respondent. Short reply in two weeks. In case, the petitioner has not been relieved as on today and in case the fourth respondent has not joined, further proceedings in that regard will be deferred for the time being. Needless to say that the petitioner and the fourth will work in the respective places at Sakroha and Shala-Nishar for the time being. Post on 19.5.2011.” 4. The matter was admitted and posted for hearing before the learned Single Judge, who in terms of judgment dated 18.6.2011, quashed the impugned order of transfer dated 30.4.2011, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 5. In the appeal, no interim order was passed in favour of Shri Yadvender on 20.6.2011, when matter was listed before this Court. 6. However, our attention was invited to Annexure P-3, report submitted by Smt. Pawna Kumari, who was officiating at G.P.S., Sakroha, making a grievance that husband of Smt. Teja Sharma, who is an Advocate, came with certain persons, one of whom was stated to be a Judge and got certain papers signed from her. They also formally marked presence of Smt. Teja Sharma in the attendance register maintained by the school even though she did not accept any joining report and without any reason she was mentally tortured and harassed. This letter is also counter-signed by Headteacher, GPS, Sakroha. 7. As such, we directed all concerned to be present along with the record today. 8. The contents of letter Annexure P-3 have been seriously disputed by Smt. Teja Sharma, as also her husband, who are present in the Court, according to them no such incident took place and Smt. Teja Sharma only gave her joining in the presence of her husband and another Advocate. But Pawna Kumari maintains her version to be true and correct. 9. According to Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, Headteacher, GPS Sakroha, Block Balh, District Mandi, H.P., Annexure P-3 was forwarded to B.P.O., Balh Block for action, but has no intimation about the same. 10. As such, the matter needs to be inquired into further by the competent authority. To begin with, we direct respondent No.3 to inquire into the matter and submit his confidential report in a sealed cover within a period of three weeks from today. Shri Yadvender, Smt. Teja Sharma, her husband, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, Smt. Pawna Kumari, amongst others shall be associated during such inquiry. 11. Record produced by Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, also reveals that even though Smt. Teja Sharma was not relieved from the school on 5.5.2011 yet she accepted the joining of Yadvender on 5.5.2011 itself. Smt. Teja Sharma was, however, relieved in absentia on 6.5.2011. According to Smt. Teja Sharma, Yadvender was subsequently relieved from school at Sakroha, which fact is seriously disputed by Yadvender. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is, as is so contended by both Smt. Teja Sharma and Yadvender, that they continue to officiate in the same school at the same place. How two persons on the same post and at the same place were allowed to continue, remains unexplained. As such, there will be a direction to Yadvender to immediately join at the place of his transfer i.e. Shala-Nishar. 12. Respondent No.3 shall also fix responsibility of the erring official, who accepted the joining report without relieving the officiating person and allowed two persons to officiate on the same post during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court. 13. It is submitted by the appellant that he has not received salary for the period in question. This aspect of the matter shall also be dealt with by respondent No.3 in his report and salary payable to Yadvender for the said period shall be recovered from the erring official. List on 29th August, 2011. Authenticated copies to the parties. (K.J.), C.J. 2nd August, 2011 (S.K.), J. (C)