CWP No.3013 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3013 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2010 **** Rajinder Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. Santosh Sarangal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is working as an Executive Engineer (Electrical) in the PWD (B&R) Department, Government of Punjab at Amritsar. He has been ordered to be transferred to Jalandhar vide the impugned order dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure P1). The petitioner is due for retirement on 30th April, 2012. His wife is serving as a Teacher in a Government-aided School at Tarn Taran i.e. near to Amritsar. The petitioner has, therefore, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with his transfer order. (2). Upon notice, the respondents have filed their reply- affidavit, which is taken on record. It is explained therein that the petitioner has been transferred from CWP No.3013 of 2010.doc - 2 – Amritsar in “administrative/public interest”. It is explained that respondent No.4 is also an Executive Engineer, who was earlier posted at Jalandhar and there is a complaint against him regarding misappropriation of the Judicial Court Complex Funds. With a view to hold an impartial and fair enquiry, it was felt necessary to transfer respondent No.4 from Jalandhar. Respondent No.4 was transferred to Patiala but there being no vacant post of Executive Engineer at that place, that the petitioner and respondent No.4 have been asked to swap their respective place of postings. (3). Ms. Charu Tuli, learned Sr. DAG, Punjab, on instructions from the departmental officials, who are present in Court, states that the enquiry in the complaint against respondent No.4 shall be completed at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months. She further assures that as soon as the enquiry against respondent No.4 is completed, the State Government shall consider the desirability of posting the petitioner back to Amritsar. (4). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that let the ongoing enquiry against respondent No.4 be concluded as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter, the State CWP No.3013 of 2010.doc - 3 – Government, keeping in view its Policies/Instructions, may consider the desirability of posting the petitioner at Amritsar. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 16.03.2010 vishal shonkar