@ ^'7 ^S'V \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTI8GARH WRIT PETITION NQS5-/ 7 OF 2004 PETITIONER: Chimnu Tigga, S/o Shri Chuiyan Tigga, Aged atoiit 37 years, Pt'eseiitly posted aiid workmg as Sub Iit^pector, Ftolice Station: Rawghat, District: Karikery Chhattisgarh. VERSUS- RESPONDENT8: , • 1). State ofChhattisgarh, Tlwgu^i: ^^C^ Tlie Sccretaiy, Depaitilient of Honie Afiairs, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawaii, Raipur, CIitiuattisgarh. ^S>^5 ^s^ .-^M<5^' ^ <^^'" ^"""" .,.., ^...^ ^ 2). Du'ector General of R^lice, Raipui', Clil-iattisgai'h. 3). Inspector General of FbUce, Bastar Range^ Disfarict: Bastar, Jagdalpur CIitiattisgarh. 4). Superiixtendent ofR^tice , District Kmiker, Clihattisgarh. 5). Superintendent ofR)lice , Dlstrict; Bijapur, Clihattisgai'h. !^7 iA^|[TPETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE lX23^?uyl 'll CON8TITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.3577 OF 2004 Chunnu Tigga Vs. State of Chhattls^u-h & otAier»* ORDER Post for: 7/2/2005 Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice "7/2/2005 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 3577 OF 2004 Chunnu Tigga Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others Sliri Sameer Behar, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition Linder Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 10-8-2004 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.3,Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range, Jagdalpur. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is working in Police Department as Sub Inspector in Police Station, Rawghat. It is contended that the petitioner's services were attached from Police Station Rawghat, District Kanker to Police Station, Pairambi.lr, District Bijapur, by respondent No.S/Inspector General of Police, vide order dated, 10-8-2004. 4. It is contended that the Chief Secretary of the State of Chhattisgarh had taken a meeting and it has been decided that no officer/employee of the State woiild be attached from his original place of posting. It is further contended that the General Administration Department, State of $ X.-.. ^ CIihattisgarh, issued a circular dated 4-6-2001 (Annexure-P/2) directing all the departments of the State not t6 issue any order of attachinent of ecaployees, to other places by disturbing them from their parent place of posting. It is also contended that in case such an order of attachment is passed, then it should be cancelled and the concerned employee should be posted at his origuial place of posting* Annexure-P/2 further contains a caution that if any person is attached, then the attachraent order should be cancelled. It is also contended that if in future any person is attached, then disciplinary proceedings may be initiated, 5. Shri Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, submits that return has been filed. It is fairly admitted that the Police Headquarters sought perinission vide letter dated 11-11-2004 (Annexure-R/2) for modification of the order to the effect that the Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police be given permission within their respective areas for attachment in Police Station to Police Station and Police Line to Police Station. 6. Shri Behar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the State especially the Secretary, has not ,come out with his own return. V.- -<. <- 3 \. 7. A bare perusal of the record, it reveals that respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed retum. The return is supported by an affidavit of Sub Divisional Officer (PoUce), Kondagaon, District JagdalpLir, who has interpreted the Annexure-P/2 in his own way. 8. Be that as it. may, the State has not placed any document/order/circular, before this Court regarding the request made by the Police Head Quarters and the same has been acceded by the State, the order of attachment is not sustainable. Learned Govt. Advocate is not in a position to defend it. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment order dated 10-8-2004 (Annexure-P/1), issued by respondent No.3, Inspector General ofPoUce, Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, in favour ofthe petitioner is concerned, can be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. 10. With the aforesaid observations the petition stands disposed of* 11. Consequently, M.W.P.No.4022/04 and I.A.No. 7480/04 also stand disposed of. |- Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice 7 /OA/2005 Gowri