é @ $§§§§§i§ EE§§§QE§ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.1S) No. f 9 £f6F 2010 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner Rakesh Joshi, aged about 5O years, S/o Late S.D. Joshi, Occupation — Service, working as Station House Officer, P.S. Oid Bhilai, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Rlo Quarter No. B-3, Street No. 19, Sector-4, Bhiiai Nagar, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs (Police), D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantriaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director General of Police-cum- Chairman of State Police Establishment Board,‘ ~ Police Headquaiters; Chha‘ttisg‘a'rh; Raipur Inspector General of Police (Administration) Police Headquarters, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. / Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, Durg (Chhattisgarh) 5. Superintendent of Police, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Respondents / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASF’UR (Writ Peti‘tion under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) S’Ingle Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri RanbIrSingh Mamas Advocate forthe petitioner Shn VVS Murthy, Dy Adv General With Shn PK Bhduu Panel Lawyer for the State ORDER GRAL‘ (Passed on this 28‘ day of April, 201 0) Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted at Poiice Station Durg. Without completion of two years of posting at Police Station— Durg, by order dated 12-11-2009 ‘(Annexure—P/i) the petitioner was transferred to Dantewada, which is against the provisions prescribed under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007 (for short “Act, 2007”) Section 14 of the Act, 2007 provides that in case of administrative exigency the same shall be recorded in writing or on the request of the employee, the bar of two years may be lifted. ‘3. In the case on hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no request on the part of the petitioner and if, it was a case of administrative exigency there was nothing recorded In writing to make reasons for transferring the petitioner after taking recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 14 of t‘ne Act, 2007. 4. Shri Marhas, further submits that being aggrieved by the impugned transfer order; the petitioner preferred an appeai under the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, 2007 to the Police Establishment Board on 20-1 1-2009 (Annexure — PIS). WRIT PETITION (S) No.1 985 OF 2m 0 PETITIONER Rakesh Joshi Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Sub-section-(3) of Section 22 of the Act, 2007 provides for consideration and disposai of representation within a period of 90 days from the date of order. 90 days have lapsed; the Police Establishment Board has not passed any order. lt appears that the provisions of the Act, 2007 has been violated at two ptaces i.e. firstly; while passing the transfer order without assigning the reasons and secondiy; by not considering the appeali representation within 90 days, which is statutory prescribed émit. At this juncture, Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing with Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer, submits that the pending appeal/representation of the petitioner, before . the Potice Estabiishment Board, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of 14 days. n view of foregoing, without examining’the merits of the case, the rector General of Policeirespondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the pending appeal/representation of the petitioner within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that till disposal of the appealirepresentation, the impugned order dated 12-1 1—2009 (Annexure — Pit), passed in respect of the petitioner, shall not be given effect to. V7 Sdl- Ashok SATISH K- AGN‘HOTRI Judge t