/^p 91rs@je Benoh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M\i^ W.P.(S.) N0. ^2011 PETITIONER Dr. K. P. Jagde S/o Late Shri Bishram Jagde, Aged about 41 years, Community Health Centre Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS \^(^ State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Health and (^\1 llllULlgll ; OCCICLdiy., l^'J& ^*9 ~ t LJ(° [-'"/^':""~^ Family Welfare Department ^/•^S" ^.^ ' D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) .-•y^\w ^ ' ' ~ ' RESPONDENTS ^ ..^".'^'i °-!^^ ^^" .^ 2. Director, Directorate Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur 3. Deputy Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Chief Medical Officer, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 5.' Dr. Sharad Kohade, Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. INNN^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR PETmONER WR!TPETmQNC8)No,4185_of20!l Dr. K.P.Jangde. VERSUS lyBSPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON UM)ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUfION OFINJXA SB:HQH'bleSMSa^hK.Ag3uhotri,J. Present: Shri Y.C.Shaniia, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Amn Sao, Govenmient Advocate forthe State/respondent No. 1 to 4. Om)ER(ORAL) (Passed on 01st day ofAugust, 2011) Challenge m this petition is to the order dated 30.06.2011 (Aimexure P/l) passed by fhe respondent No. 2, whereby tiie suspension ofthe petitioner has been revoked and thereafter he has been transfeiTed from Coniimmity Health Centi'e, Bodla, District Kawardha to Commumty Health Centre, Kartala, District Korba. The petitioner further challenges the order of relieving dated 13.07.2011 (AnnexureP/12). Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Block Medical C^fficer at Conimunity Health Centre, Bodla, District Kabirdliam. The petitioner was seryed with a show cause notice on 19.11.2010 by the respondent No, 1 wherein it was alleged that he was absent from duty irom 11.11.2010 which was duly replied on 30.05.2011. Therealler, the petitioner was placed under suspensioo vide order dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure P/10) aiid was attached to fhe Head Qffice, -.-1--A5""^':^ \ ^"^^ '"%^ ^^% "I, t il „.:-„ 'i I- ^ilSBSi. ! 1\ •i;-'B:—%^ i.e. office of the Chief Medical Officer, Raipur. Later orL fhe suspension of the petitioner was revoked by the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 (Amiexure P/12) aod has been transferred from Commumty Health Centre, Bodla, District Kawardha to Conmiumty Health Centre, Kartala, District Korba. 3. Shri Sharma, leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that after revocation offtie suspension order, the petitioner ought to have beeii posted at his original place ofposting. Trajasferring hini to another place after revocation of the suspension order is unjusti&ed and illegal. By way oftransfen he has been pumshed as he has been transferred to a place which is 250 Kms. away from his original place ofposting. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sao, leamed Goveniment Advocate appearing for tiie State/respondent No. 1 to 4 submits fhat the transfer ofthe petitioner is in no way a punitive order as in the impugned transter order dated 30.06.2011, it is mentioned fhat the period from 19.04.2011 till revocation would be subject to tmal decision m the enquiry proceedmgs. The fransfer has been in administrative exigency. 5. Heard leaiiied counsel appearmg for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6> On pemsal ofthe impugned order dated 30.06.2011, the contention of leamed State counsel appears to be correct as there is no mention as well as it does not appear to be a case of punishtiient, tiiereiipon the petitioner has been transferred. It is always for fhe GovemmeBt to decide asto where an employee shall be posted keepiiig in view the administrative exigency and public interest. './: .3 This Court has limited Jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter except in the cases ofproved malafide^ non-competence of autfaority passing the transfer order and not being in conformity with the mles and regulations. The petitioner/employee camiot be permitted to remam at one place forever. Under the provisions of sen/'ice mles, employer has all the powers to post aa employee at a particular place in view of public interest and admimstrative exigency. (SQQ E.P.Royappa v. State ofTamilNadti and another1, Union of India and another v. Janardhan Debanath & another2, State ofM.P. and another \\ S.SXoura\? and others and Mohd. MasoodAhmadv. StateofU.P. &0thers4). In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordmgly dismissed. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit (1974) 4 SCC 3 ; (2004) 4SCC 245 ;H995)3SCC270