^ ^.. 9»^SSWS^3^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^.fl,^^.*<^-n-^.0.^,/%,^.^;i^,A.'?;,'3.'t?'-';v,<-<..(?\.q-'ra q ,->. :,f||i:i;%li^%;%3%igll|tjili|^ '^m aEEC)liiCTEffiDij%Eii©]l i^M^m:'s asii^isrtJRi PETITIONER •^^-^ /'.T^''"^:^I_'_;_:-1;''--;1 RESPONDENTS: I^TlETITION^ N0.^^/2011 SINGUBE^ ShishirSharma, aged about45 years, S/o. Late Dr. Shri J.D. Sharma, Present posted as CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Dhamdha, District Durg (CG). VERSUS ' ;. :. . .• 1. j StafebfChhattisg |jJSFIit'ougK:|!iKej|eGre Panchayaf and Rural Development, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan. Raipur (CG). ^' 2.' Prakash Meshram, Presently Posted as CEO Janpad Panchayat, Bemetara, Durg (CG) ;;.: ; ' . . WRITPETITIONUNDERARTIG3LE2260ETHECONSTITUTIONOF INDIA \^-^ :^, HTGH COIJRT OF CHHATriSCrARH AT BITA8PUR WRIT PETITION (8)No. 6518 of2011 PETmONER : Shishir Sharma. RESPONDENTS WR81J8 State ofChhattisgarh <& Another. WRIT PETmON UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF 'THE CONSlTTUnON OF INDIA SB: Hon»NeShri Satisii K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rahul Taniaskan Advocate fbr the petitioner. P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State/r-espond^it No. 1. O R D R R (Passed on 04ffi dayo?November, 2011) 1, Challenge m this petition is to the order dated 31.10,2011 -(Aimexiire P/l) whereby, the petitioner, working as Chief Execirtive Officen Ja.npa.d Panchayat-Dhamdha., Di^trict. Durg, ha.s been tra.nsferred to Janpa-d Pa.nchayat, Bemeta.ra, District. LXirg, :on admmistrative groimds. 2. Shd Tamaskar, leamed eoimsel a.ppea.rmg for the^ petit.ioiier sybmits Ihat the impiigned tra.iisfer is iii violation ofthe transfer policy dated 13,06.2011 as the petitioner is a class II officer, and he coiild have been transferred only m case ofimavoidable and emergency situation. ITie petitionen after being pbsted at his present rilace ofposting, has been tra.nsferred within a period of six months which is a.?i oirtcome of mahfide. Shd Ta.ma.skar flirtfaer siibmlts that. ifthe impiigned tra.nsfer is given efiect. to, the petitioner woyld have to be tlie preserrting officer in a case where enquiry has been imtiated agamst faim- 3.. So far as coHtention oft.he leamed coimsel fbr the petitioner that the petitionen being a.cla.ss II officer ca.HHot. be transferred, is concemed, 'fhe sa.me is misplaced as the impiagned trasisfer order ha.s been passed on 31.10.2011 and vide circular dated 08.08.2011, the transfer policy . dated 13.06/2011 has been .amended to the e'xt-ent. that m case ofiirgeiit malt-ers, in coordmatioii with the CNef.Mim.st.er, class I and dass II officers may be tmnsferred^ Qn pemsal ofihc impugned order, it is clear that there is a.pproval.of^the Chief Mimsf.er, Furthen the allegation ofmalafide is not siipported by any material^ exeept the selfsa.me ^.atement thiis, the sa.me is not e^tablished. The petitioner ^ has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal groimd i,e, violatiosi of aiiy st^tutoty mles or regixlations or lack ofcompetenee ofthe officer, passingthe impugned order, 4. So far as the contention ofthe petitior&er that he would have to be the presentmg officer in a case where departmental enquiry is pending agamst him, it is for fhe State Govemment to make appropriate armngement so that the proceedings ofthe departmental appeal may not be fhistrated, and that can not be a groimd fbr mterfermg with the tramfer order, 5. It is well-settled that. t.ra.nsfer is.aii mcidence of sendce a.nd it is for the employer to decide aMo where a particular officer/employee be post.eA keeping in view publie mterest as well as a.dmim^rat.ive exigency and for asking even for smali deviafiorL should iiot be any mterference with the admimstrative fimction of the State Govemment. 6. This Coiirt has limited jurisdiotion t.o mterfbre with the transfer matter except. in the cases ofproved maMfide, iion-competenee ofairthority pa-ssmg the fransfer.order a.2id not beiog m conformity witli tiw mles- and regiilations, The petitioner/employee camiot be permitted to remain at one place foreyer, Under the provisiom of service mles^ employer has all the powers to post an employee at a partioiiiar place in • view of piiblic interest and a.dmimst.rative exigeney^ (See E.P,Royappa v. State ofTamilNadu andanothe^, Union oflndiaand another v. Janardhan Debanath & anothe^, State ofM.P. and another v. S.S.Kozirav and others3 ssidMohd MasoodAhmad v. State ofU.P. & Others4). 7. In view of the above, the writ. petition is dismissed, No order aMo costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ 1(1974)4SCC3 2 (2004)43cc 245 3 (1995) 3 SCC 270 4(2Q07)8-SCC150