o C^-(^7 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT^PETITIONIS) Np. ^^72011 PETITIONER ^' ^^?^^ ^'^' ^ ¥!°.-^ ^ ^'^r ,-^" <'•' ->•' .s.'^ sf RESPONDENTS ir Smt. Kamlesh Vanshkar wife of Ravendra Vanshkar, aged about 38 years, Occupation Upper Division Clerk, R/o. Sector-II, Block 13, Room No.4, Kashiram Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Throuhgh : Secretary, Higher School Education Departnient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) :2) Director, Directorate, Chhattis- garh, Public Education, Pension -" Bada, Raipur (C.G.) :: 3) District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^' 1 t^- "<» s -»-<" 33 ^JSS ;-'^-^^^ J? .-s^ ,S.' ^ !c .HK3fclCOURIO&GHHAmS©ARH:BtLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.33840s 0)11 • PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Kamlesti Vanshkar Versus State of Ghhattisgarh & Others (Writ PetlUon under Arttele 226/227 ofthe CensUtutiw) of India) Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms. Hamkia Siddiqui, Advocate for fte prtitioner. Shri ^ay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt Advocate for the Sterte. liw >—f< iN»watw<u*N^w<Miwiw^»ww»—riN ihfi»Mt.(K^arKia» ORDER (OWL} passed on ttiis 30 day of June.2011) Challenge in this peBUon is to the orcter dated 09.07.20W (Annexure P-1), virtwreby, the petitioner has been fransferred from the effice of the Director, Public Instructions to the ofRce (rf Disfrict Educatfon Officer, Raipur or Bloek Education Officer. The main grievance of the petltioner is that the petftioner h^ been transferred on the basls of cwnptBint made by senw of Nie officiate, as reported by the Director, Publie Instructtons, in hls communication dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure P-2) to the Secretary Govwnmant of Chhaffisgarh, School Education Department, Raipur. Ms. Siddiqui, learned counsel Tor ttie pedttoner, fiather submits that a copy of the complaint made by the officials dated -nil- (Annexure P.4) does not indicate that there was any complaint a®ainstthe psUUoner. The petitioner was simply a witness to the ineident Thus, the impugned order transferring the petittoner on ttie baste of conytaint (Annexure P-4) is bad and vitoted. Having heard learned counsel fer Vhe petiUenw atd pwused tte pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute that there are serious complamt against the peUtfoner, as reported t?y the Director, Public InstructiQns, in his communication dated 29.CB.2010 (Annexure P-2). The submission of leamed counsel for the petitionw •T -f0 L- ttiat there is only onecomplairt, whjch te Uie baas <rf reportsybmittgd by the Director, Public Instructfons i.e. Annexure P-4, wherein there is no complaint against the petitioner, cannot be accefrtBd, as ttie communicatton dated 29.06.2010, ctoes ncrt refer to any partcular complaint, but several complainte made againrt the prtltioner as well as Other person also. 5. Law in this respect is well settled that, "if there is any com(riaint against an official, the State Govemment is certainly within Us Jurisdtetion to transfer such an employee". On the similar issue, the Su|»'®meCourt, in Union oflndia smd aoofter v. Jaoareten Debanaff? & anofhef', hetd as under: • "14. The allegattons aascfe apamst tbe responcSents aie of serious nafwe, and ffie comSuct attiibuteft is ceriaiiriy unbacomng. WheVher there was any midseha\riour is a quesSon w/rfcft can 6e gona wto OT a departmente/ pmceecSng. For the purposes of effecSng a fransfer, (he questton of hoklng an engufy fo ffncf oirf v^wttwr ffiiwe was m/sfeehsvKx/r or cajdi/ct unbeconw^ s^ an emfdoyee is unneoessary and what is needad is the prima facie satisfacSen of ihe authority concsrrwS on (fte cofrisirysoairy ispoits about fte occunence compfatnecf or' ancf ff ffie rectuiiement, as submitied by leamed cowisel tor tto tBspaidents, afhokSry an elaboiate eoguwy is to be insistod upon (fte vwy fxwpose of ^ansferring an emptoyee in pufcfc interest or exigenctes af adminisha&sn to enforee cfecorom and ensure problty woiM get frushated. The quesSon whether ffie wqooncfenfe coufcf be ^ansferred to a cSfferent dwision is a matter for the emptoyer to conader <tepeneSng upon ff» actmirsstoaSve rwcessifies and ffw exte/rf af solufmn for the pmMems faced by Ae admifsstratton." (See also Mohd. MasocxiAtmiadv. StetecfU.P. & Qther^) 6. It is further well-settled that transfer is an inddenoe <rf senace smd it is for .^ the employer to deckle asto where a particular officer/empleyee be po^ed, keeping in view public interest as wetl as adrrinistoativa ' (2004)48cc 245 2 (2007)88cc 150 8. 9. exigency.This Court has limited jurtsdictipn to interfere vrfth ttie (ransfet matter, except in the <ases of proved male ffcfe, non-comprtence of authority passing ttie fransfer order and not betng in cwiformity with 8ie mles and regulatipns. The peUtioner/employee cannot be permltted to remain at one ptace forever. Under the provteions af servica rutes, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a partculs»ptace in view of publte interest and administrative exigency. (See E.P.Royappa v. Stete o/ Tamf/ Nacfa and anofhe^, Shilpi Bose fMre.) and offiere v. Stete ofBihar & anothei1'. Stete of M.P. and another v. S.S.Koisrv and otten^, Chief Commercial Manager, Sou i Cenfial Rahvay, Secuncferabad & Others v. G. Ratnam& Offier'/ and Airporis Auihority of IncSe v. f^ijeev Raten Pandey & Olhen^). In case on hand, 1 do not find any reason to interfere with the tranrfw order, as the employer is fulty competent to transfer an employee, if an atmosphere in the working place is vttiated on aecount of the condud of some of the employees. The employer can choose efther transferring the employee or taking steps agalnst ttie employee, if the complaint is ofserious nature. Without going into the nature of the comptain^ slnce ttie Govemment had chosen to trander Itre petitioner who has spoitod Bie wortdng atmosphere in the office, the Court should rertrain from irterfering when such discretion is exercise by the State Govemment, in the Interest of proper vmridng condition. The next contentton of the teamed counsel for the peUtioner is Ihat ttie peUUoner has been postect at a place where no post of Assistant Grade-11 is availabte, as is evident from the information recewed by the petiUoner under the Right to Information Art, 20% 31974(4)SCC3 s 4 (1991)8upp 2 SCX;659 8(1995}3SCe270 - . S(2007)8SGC212 - i 7(2009)8SCC337 ; 3 •I "L- 10. (Annexure B-10). The State Govemment is dirocted to took into this griayance and post the petitloner at a place where the equhffllent post held by the peUtioner is availableand fbr that the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation. n is also open to the p^tioner to make a representation in respect of a complaint or report submittBd by tte Director, Public InstrucUons. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ peUBon stands disposed of, with aforestated observalon. No order artocosb. Sd/- SatishK.Agmhotri Judge