w Lwo7# smme BENcH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S)No. {0%) 0F2011. Manharan Kurnar Tiwari, S/o. late Shri Devi Dayal Tiwari, aged about 54 years, Accountant, Block Education Office Patan, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2'26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1029 of2011 Manharan Kumar Tiwari. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shrl Somkant Verma Advocate for the petitioner Shrl Y S Thakur Deputy Advocate General w1th Shrr N N Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent ORDER ORAL (Passed on 04‘ day ofApril, 201 1) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on account of pendency of some criminal case, the petitioner has been sent on deputation to the Chhattisgarh State Open School, Raipur, vide order dated 08.02.2011 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Under Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, which is not permissible under the provisions of law. 2. Shri Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing with Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents submits that under memo dated 03.07.2006 (Annexure R/l), in accordance with the direction of the State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau and Anti Corruption Bureau, in case of a criminal charge under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, an employee should be posted at a place where he cannot use or misuse his office, creating obstacle in the trial of the case. Accordingly, the petitioner has been posted in the Open School, Raipur. 3. In respect of the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner may \ have been posted any where within the state, he cannot be posted \ft in an institution which is not a part of the State Government, the State in its response has submitted that since the set up has been approved by the State Government, the Open School becomes a part of the State Government. The above contention of the State/respondent is not sustainable in the eyes of law as in case of all the autonomous bodies like local authorities, Universities, set up is approved by the State Govemment for the purpose of financial sanction but the employees of the local authorities, Universities, do not become the employees of the State Government. Further, the State/respondent has not produced any other document in support of its contentions that Open School is a department of the State Government. Thus, it can safely be held that the petitioner has been sent on deputation to the Open School without obtaining his consent, which is not permissible even if there is a criminal case pending against him. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 i (Annexure P/l) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State Government to post the petitioner at any place wherein he may not influence the witnesses or other things which are required in the criminal trial. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge