@mkE %€am @ w m :THE HON'BLE HIGH couar OF aHHATrIsaARHA BILAsPua (a) an PETITION s. No w ; ‘ t PETITIONE Rafan Kumar' sinh, aged 51 years, Son of ate Rekha Singh, at prese w “ L m orking as a Senior Account Clerk", @w in the office of Executive Engineer, Wafer Resources DivisiOn, No.2, Ramonujganjgbisfric? Surgujo (C.G.), l.‘ " VER5U5 tate of Chhottisgor'h, Throu Th ecretary, Water esources r ent, D.K)S. Bhawon, Raip‘ur (. hief Engineer, waté‘r' Rr Department, Raipur ’(C.GV.-~:)\,r uerintendent Engineer, arnai ’- Project,‘ Division A istrict Surguja (C.6.), ae o. a (C.G‘), Ramanujganj, District Surguj . Executive Engineer, Water 'ReS Division No.1, Ambikapur, i u Sp Shyam B mbikapur, D Engineer, Resources, Dio Executive % ‘ T c R / g S gh : e s R Depat- m 66.) C esouces Wtr N2, visin ources Dstrict Srguja (C.G.), ” WRIT PETITION UDER ACL 226 OF THE COSTI- ION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE O P OR, MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ORDER/ORDRS DIRIO/ DIRECTIONS ETC <@ N RTIE N ' T F APPRORIATE WRIT E ECTN PETITIONER Ratan Kumar Si VERSUS State of Chhatti‘ RESPONDENTS WRIT PE'ITI'ION UNDER ARHCLE 226 OF THE C ghouiwL Shri Vlshnu Koshta, Advocate for the petltioner. ‘ Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advooa e for the State/respondents. i ‘Shri J.P.Shukla, Advocate for the Interv 'nor. ‘ of20 10 r agh. 6§ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3126 ORDER ORAL (Passed on 30 day of March, I transferred from Ramanujganj to iBarnai Canal Division, i Ambikapur, the mam cause 1e the complalnt agamst the petitioner stands v removed Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents fairly submits r. that nothing adverse has been found against the petitioner in the y epquiry made on the complaint. ; This couit, vide order dated 01072010 stayed the effect and _ operation ofthe impugned order dated 16.06.2010 (Annexure P/8). More than 9 months have already passed and the same could not be given effect to in light ofthe above interim order. Even otherwise, i nothing adverserhas been found in the enquiry report against the petmoner In View of the above the impugned order dated 16 6 2010 (Annexure P/8) 1s quashed. However, 1t ls made clear that liberty dfthe employer to post the petitioner at any place in public interest and administrative exigency is not restricted on any ground. 5. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. 2011) garh & Others. ONSTITU'HON OF INDIA ‘ SB Hon’ble Shn Satxsh K. Agn I. ‘ Learned counsel appearmg for the pettttoner subrmts that on the bas1s of a complamt, the pet1t1oner,zAss1sl:ant Grade II, was x Vide order dated 16.6.2010 (Annexure P/8). 1 Subsequently, the complaint was properly examined by a ‘ committee of three members wherein it was found that the . : complaint made against the petitioner was false and baseless which 1s ev1dent hom the report dated 27 11 2009 (Annexure P/5) Thus