'.-.!& '<igi» an^i vs R-) TfSjT 3H^ siD*iiqi 'TST -^ww<i, ®Tily'is,fstdiy^ ^a^.l^..&.S..Q... 1tPR) S«iraR^^fl STi^ PETITIONBR: -V RBSPONDENTS: Director Inspector General of Police (Administrative) Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Sinele Bencb: Hon'Ule Shri Dhireadra Mishra. J. 4.2.2009 Mr. BP Singh.^learned coun) Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, leamed D| Heard. This petition is directed 2006 (Annexure P/l) whereby Inspector in Economic Offence W^ Bastar Range, as also against the| P/14), whereby representation respondent No. 3. The earlier petition of the ^) orderdated 10.10.2007 (Annexur( filing representation against hisj <ftE^[<n<{tl *ii*t<*iT ^F^S^ Tf^^R ^T SfRpT 4if^?| rsus- Raghubir Singh ThaKur, S/o Late Qanpat Singh Thakur, aged about 45 years, R/o House No.A-17, Radhaswami Nagar, Raipur, PS Purani Basti, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (CO) State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG) lel for the petitioner. r GA for the State. ag^inst the transfer order dated 19th March, ;he petitioner, who was posted as Sub ng (EOW), Raipur, Kas been transferred to order dated 6fh December, 2008 (Annexure )f the petitioner has been rejected by ititioner was dismissed by this Court vide P/3), however, the petitioner's request for transfer order was acceded to and the '^SR lyW'SII U«l-li<'IM—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000. -HG—78 311^1 ^myfhi? -^ 3sr-<<i<)idq, aifll'y'16, fsKfli^y ^-JM.f..(.s..........^..u.. ail^T'T^; (' 'renwHf??! an^! 2- respondents were directed to dec law. Thereafter, the petitioner filec alleging therein that his repres respondents despite directiQn fro petition was also disposed of b^ (Annexure P/12) with liberty to before respondent No.2, who was within a stipulated period. The representation of the order of Annexure P/14 dated 61al petitionersubmits that rejeotion facts as the same shows that the years in EOW, Raipur. When leaj whether the petitioner has com{j Annexure P/l, he submitted thi date. , Thus, on petitioner's owj continuing at EOW, Raipur since in the considered opinion of this| impugned transfer order of Anne^ whereby representation of the peti| In the result, the petition) dismissed at the admission stage <?i!*iE<n<4lt ^wv^ ^f fe^ <f^^i< ^Taifimsn^n jde his representation in accordance with 4 yet another writ petition before this Court intation has not been decided by the )|'n this Court in this regard. The above this Court vide order dated 17.11.2008 |:he petitioner to file fresh representation f(irther directed to decide his representation ititioner has been ultimately rejected vide December, 2008. Leamed counsel for the af his representation is based on incorrect tietitioner was working for more than three ^ned counsel for the petitioner was asked lied with the impugned transfer order of the petitioner has not been relieved till admission, the petitioner is at least [ast four years and in these circuinstances, Court, no interference is called for in the ;ure P/l and the order of Annexure P/14, ^ioner has been rejected. being without substance deserves to be fcselfand is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- \ DhirendraMishra Judge y ••S^s.ssv...