C.W.P NO. 21648 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 21648 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 27.04.2009 Vikas Deep ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Peeush Gagnesh, Advocate for Mr. C. M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 08.12.2008 (Annexure P-8), whereby after his re-instatement, respondent No.2 has again been posted as Tehsildar at Jallalabad, District Ferozepur. The petitioner's case is that during his previous posting at Jallalabad, respondent No.2 tampered with the revenue record in order to deprive the petitioner/his mother from the fruits of a civil Court decree passed in their favour. The petitioner made complaints for registration of FIR as well as to the administrative authorities. A departmental inquiry was ordered and respondent No.2 was placed under suspension. However, after re-instatement, respondent No.2 has again been posted as Tehsildar at Jallalabad only vide the impugned order. C.W.P NO. 21648 OF 2008 -2- The petitioner alleges that respondent No.2 has been threatening and pressurizing him for withdrawal of a criminal complaint which is also pending against respondent No.2 in the Court at Jallalabad. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, State of Punjab has filed its reply-affidavit. It is stated that departmental enquiry has already been conducted against respondent No.2 and finding him guilty, the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on him vide an order dated 05.03.2009. On this premise, it is maintained that respondent No.2 can now be posted as Tehsildar anywhere., Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and considering the fact that a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 is pending in the Court at Jallalabad in relation to the alleged tampering with the revenue record and the fact that respondent No.2 has already been held guilty in the departmental action, I am of the considered view that it is not desirable or expedient in public and administrative interest to post respondent No.2 at Jallalabad till the said complaint is decided. Suffice it to say that if posted at Jallalabad, respondent No.2 would become the custodian of that very official/revenue record which he is alleged to have tampered with. It is imperative to protect and keep that record intact till it is scrutinized by the learned Judicial Magistrate. C.W.P NO. 21648 OF 2008 -3- However, instead of quashing the impugned transfer order, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to transfer respondent No.2 at some other place (other than Jallalabad) by passing a separate transfer order to that effect, within a period of two months. Since the inquiry has already been held against respondent No.2 in which he has been found guilty and consequential punishment has been imposed, no separate action is required to be taken in the accompanying contempt petition. The same also stands disposed of. No costs. APRIL 27, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE