HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2534 of 2003 Petitioner: Shjv Kumar Sahu, S/o 5hri Ramadhar 5ohu, Aged obout 45 years, R/o Janakpur, Thana Bhoratpyr, District: Koriya (C>@.). Versus Resowident: State of Chhattisgarh Throu9h; Collector/ Koriya, &i5trict; Koriya (C.&.). POST FOR OR&ER ON/T?^L. SEPTEMBEft, 2003 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge /^^ September.^OOS HI©HCOURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHAmS&ARH Writ Petition hk>. 2534 of 2003 Petitioner; Shiv Kumar Scrfiu, S/o Shri Ramodhar Scrfiu/ Aged about 45 years, R/o Jcuriakpur, Thona Bharotpur, District: Koriya (€»<?.). Versus Respondent: Stote of Chhattisgarh Throu9h; Collector, Koriya, District; Koriya (C.G.). Presenti Shri V.&. Bajpai, Senior Advocate Shri Prwin Das, Panel Lawyer For the petitioner For the State/respondent. Before: Hon^ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo, J. ^^...-. ORDBR (Passed on /?^. September, 2003) The petitioner h<K preferred this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, chalien9ain9 the order dated 10th July 2CX)3 by ^hich he has been transferred from Sub Treasury, Janakpur to Manendragorh. The petitioner's petition is that he ww working as Cterk in the Sub Treasury Office, Janakpur ond he has been tronsferred by the Collector, Koriya from Janakpur to Sub Treasury Mmendragarh. The petjtioner is an elected President of Chhattisgcrh Clerk ^rade-III Employees Union of block Janakpur. The petitioner is still holding thaf' post md the State ©overnmentof Madhya Pradesh had published a circular dcrt-ed 29-6-1990 to the effect 8" 5. 6. that the members of Union should not be tronsferred. Even the State &ovemment has issued a notification dated 15-5"2CX)2 consisting the transfer policy. According to the policy, the Stote ©overnmenthas decided that the bon of transfer will continue till further orders in view of convenience and if any transfer js necessary then the some will be ordered after getting cleoronce from the Chief Minister. In the present cc^e no clearance has been sought from the Chief Minister. The petitioner's children <re studying at Janakpur ond he has been transferred to Sub Treasury Manendragcrh which is 120 kilometers awcy from Janokpur, 1+ierefore, the impugned order be quashed. Return has been filed on behdf of the State/respondent in whjch it has been mentioned that the transfer of the petitioner has been made as there were several complaints agdnst the petitioner, therefore, on administrative ground he has been transferred and the overall In-charge of Treasury the Collector has transferred the petitioner. The petitioner hod encroached upon the government land and constructed a house over it and the same has been rented out and he is residing in the government accommodation. On a complQint an inquiry was conducted cgainst the petitioner by the Tehsildar which was found correct ond a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner upon which the petittoner filed an ©xplanotion, therefore, on QdministratJve exigency and in public interest the petitioner has been transferred from Janakpur to ManendrQgarh, therefore, the petition be dismissed. I hove heard the leorned counsei for the parties. The transfer is the incident of the service and it has been said by counsel for respondent that the transfer has been made on Qdministrotive exigency. The petitioner was working as cierk in the Sub Treosury Office, Janakpur since 1997 thereby he has completed almost six years at one place. Moreover, there were compldnts ogainst the petitioner that he after encroaching upon Borve* the government lond constructed a house on that l<md and the same has been rented out. On inquiry by the Tehsildar the same has becn found to be correct. 7. A perusal of tiie records submitted by the counsel for the respondent/State reveals thot there were complaints agdnst th@ petitioner about the misconduct and he was also not working property. TTiere was comploint that he was not depositing the money of the persons who were comiry to the Treasury for depositing their money through challon. 8. As f<y QS the question of &overnm€nt's circular that the office bearer of the Union should not be transferred, these ore the guidelines that it is not necesscry that these 9uid@lines should be adhered in all probability and in all coses the petitioner is wt entitled to misuse his position under the garb of these governmenfs circular, pcrticulorly, when there were complaints cgainst the petitioner that he is misusing his position and he hos encroached upon the government Iwid and constructed a house over it. Moreover, absut his working performonce and conduct, there were general compldnts that he is not depositing the money in the Tpeosury. 9. Moreover, the petitioner made Q representation to the Collector which hos been rejected by the Collector. Therefore, in view of the above, there is nothing on record which shows that the transfer of the petitioner has been made on the ground of any malafide or is in violation of any Stotutory Ruies and moreover,the petitioner has rot been made out a case for exercising the powers of judicial review by this Court against his transfer. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is StQble to be dismissed and it is dismissed. -^ Gv? Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge