^j^l^-^lf^ ^^13T?^l ^*ii^ "s- .v^ '^^S T^I<1|<>1<1, '^ft^FT^, l®l(yll'y'j,< ^_M±L^1^06Zf2^^ ' NINdl ^^jc^—"""•"—•-•"""—r"""""-"M<^; 200 ^IT^T'^^ (^t^^?) ^^TW^^ ^ii^l' SinQle Bench; Hon'ble Mr W.P. [s] (Petition U/A 226 ofj Petitioner A.K. Hc|zare, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Sri Krjshnarao Hazare, R/o D-61, Vasant Vihar, Fj.O. S.E.C.L District Bilaspur (CG\ Vs Respondents 1. Coal Cum Roa< 2. Sou- its Seej Present: Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Adv. fo^ br. N.K. Shukla. Sr. Advocate wi1|l respondents. 22.01.2009 Heard. By this petition the petii Annexure P-1 dated 19.4.2008 p<( the petitioner, who was posted] Head Quarter, Bilaspur, has bee^ Ltd., t^hanbad. ^Rt^"^^ ^IT^ff"? fe^ <M<^I< ^3?f^H^T^T Justice Dhirendra Mishra) [Jo. 2406/08 Constitution of India) India Limited, through its Chairman Managing birector, 10, Netaji Subhas I, Kolkata-700 001 (WB) h Eastern Coalfields Limited, through Chairman-cum-Managing Director. •at Road, Bilaspur (CG) thepetitioner. h Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate for the ioner has impugned the order of issed by the respondents, whereby as Chief Engineer (Civil) S.E.C.L. transferred to Bharat Coking Coal ^U-^^ ^U^st^l <§^-ii^iM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. .^ ^ '•^y^ .,y .-f-y ^i^r'^if^w iTO^l^IIRt^ 'ysr ^i^xn^, y)Ti1'M<i(o, fsr^Tray ^ITO^ff «»*<«i|S "^200 ^TI^TTT^F (1E|?f3SI^) 'S1<iTW^ft^ ^SI^T -z- Briefly stated, case of thej an honest officer, he had initial Contractor and the said Contracjtor of the petitioner, implicated th|( through the Central Bureau of Ir^ is facing prosecution under vari| Corruption Act on account of tr( Raipur. While the petitioner wa^ condition was imposed that h^ Chhattisgarh during pendency o^ after transferring ^the petition^ applied before the said Cour( restricting the petitioner wit| Chhattisgarh. It is further case order has been passed as a resi|l the C.B.I. to remove the petitiort( petitioner has not been transfer^ Learned counsel for the contractor at whose instance t^ C.BJ. was subsequently black-li^l ^l^i^i^li "RR^f^ fe^ <M^« ^S^H^I^i jpetitioner is that the petitioner is jed proceedings for black-listing a being aggrieved by the action petitioner in a false trap case Ivestigation, Raipur. The petitioner )us sections of the Prevention of ip case before the C.BI. Court at granted bail by the said Court,a shall not leave the State of trial, however, the respondents, [r, behind the back of petitioner and obtained relaxation from hin the territory of State of )f the petitioner that-the transfer It of various memos addressed by |er from the area and as such,the \ed on administrative ground. petitioner submits that the said \e petitioner was trapped by the ted by the S.E.C.L. The C.B.I. at ^^<^-M ^W^K^ <S^i^8M—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. r- ^?^I'^?I^NT ^IT ^lt^T ^RNir ^oET ^iiqi<n4, ^Til^^ico/^RTray wnfi<ii»Tw •"Wi200 ^TI^T ^R^F (^S^T) the behest of said Contractor mala fidely. On the other hand, Dr. respondents submits that the purely on the administrative against the petitioner as alleg| prerogative of the respondentsj officer to the places where his an exigency of service. I have heard learned perused the documents available It is settled law that trai service but also a condition of officer of a public undertaking h< any particular place or place o ordinarily not interfere in exerci; the matters of transfer under Ai India unless the Courts finds tha1 that the service rules prohibi'1 authorities, who issued the transfi pass such orders. ^ <r^^?K ^^fRiH^T^T [^rocured impugned transfer order Shjjkla, learned Sr. Advocate for the |3etitioner has been transferred gr4und and there was no mala fide lleg^d in the petition. It is the as an employer, to transfer its s^rvices are required as transfer is coufisel for the parties. I have also o|n record. ii|isfer is not only an incidence of serjvice. No Government employee or i(|s any legal n'ght tecb'e posted at his choice. The Court should je of discretionary jurisdiction in 1-ticle 226 of the Constitution of either the order is mala fide or t|s such transfer, or that the insf^r orders, were not competent to ^U^i^ ^M^U^ <S^K4(H—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. "^ -^f ^ ,^' :^^' ^T^I^i'f^te ^W^H^TWIW ~?^[ ^ii^id4, ^tw^, f^ray SfTOdT <l»*(l<?t "Wi 200 STT^T'q^F ('^3^?) ^«iw<^i^a -\ From the documents availl even after registration of offe|nce Prevention of Corruption Act, petitioner was revoked by the re^ the services even during the therefore, no mala fide as allegec) to the respondents For the aforesaid reasons/ interference by this Court in e^ Article 226 of the Constitution order of the petitioner. In the result, the petitic deserves to be dismissed and it i'; as to cost. ^S^fo41^ ^Rdt ^ 'fe^ ^N^H •^^H^II^T ible on record it is evident that under the provisions of the 1-he order of suspension of the Ipondents and he was reinstated in Ipendency of criminal case and by the petitioner can be imputed 1-here appears to be no ground for jercise of the jurisdiction under jof India in the impugn transfer \n has no substance, the same accordingly dismissed. No order Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^m^W^^i^ ^3(^ <M^KI(M—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000.