,§ C g wa® IN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (C G ) WRIT PETITION (S) NO <S?\ OF 2011 (5.3.) ,x‘ Goverdhan Lal ahu, v" I S/o Late Ganesh Ram Sahu, aged - H I 1 about 53 years, Jail Warder, I ‘ CentraIJaiI Raipur(c.G.) ‘ ‘ PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1. The State ofChhattusgarh EOme (Jail) Depargment DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director General/ Jail & i 'Sudharatmak Sewaye, Raipur (C.G.) Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur (C.G.) Jail Superintendent, District Jail Dantewada (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA S 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5571 OF 2011 PETITIONER Goverdhan Lal Sahu Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri MK. Bhaduri, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. RESPONDENTS ORDER (Passed on this 20‘“ day of October, 201 1) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 11—8—2011 (Annexure — P/1) whereunder the petitioner has been transferred from Central Jail, Raipur to District Jail Dantewada. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of Rule 208 (2) of the MP/CG Pa‘isr ns Rules, 1968 (for short “the Rules, 1968”), a Jail W’arde: cannot be transferred outside the circle, except in exceptional circumstances after recording the reasons in writing. By the impugned order dated 11—8—2011 the petitioner has been transferred outside the circle from Central Jail, Raipur to District Jail Dantewada, on administrative grounds, without.assigning proper reasons, The impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed. The reasons assigned by the State in the affidavit that exceptional circumstances were in existence is not justified in view of the fact that the order dated 11-8—2011 does not deal with the transferof the petitioner alone wherein some exceptional circumstances were there. lt appears that as many as 12 transfers were made on the request of the employees and 5 transfers were made on administrative exigency. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State, based on the averments made in the reply, is noticed to be rejected, as this does not support the explanation. 5. Rule 208 (2f of the Rules, 1968 reads as under: xx “W 208. u’a'Rzff $1 WWI M W Procedure relating to transfer of warders)—1) m W W W 21% 319mm; W m Em IWWW§%W1§%W WWWWW$W m, WW, WW%W ww$mmwwmg, $Mm§WW®Wm WmwfaaQwméhWaw WIWW$WWW$§W ghava‘snffWWEEaW wmwmggwmmzkm W$mawwwu§rrhm, memawmmw WWEETW?W,WW W,WH§%WH&WW wwwaéim$mw¢I 2)W$Wq€r@a3a%w§ VWWW$WHE§ wwmmmmm EW,U$W@$WWWW$ ammaé§rWa§mWWIw W¥WWWWWW$ wwmml” v 6. In View of the above, the impugned transfer order dated 11-8-2011 (Annexure — P/1), in respect of the petitioner is quashed. However, liberty is reservedto the State to pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with Iaw, if so advised. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge GoWri