lag; \odeg HIGH CGUR’E‘ QF CHHATTKSGARH AT BELASPUR Writ ygtxztion 1S) my“ 2341 oj 2009 VETFTEQNER Madall Mohail Mahamt, S/o Shm’ 88112111 Das Mahmt, agad abaut 38 years, $eni0r R.T.O., S.E.C.L. Offlos, Raigarh (suspended), District Raigarh (CG), R/a Chhote Atannuda Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) RESPQNDENTS VERSUS Sou } Eastern Coaliielde Limited, Bilaspur, Through C.M,D. Seepat Road, Bilaspu‘r (0G,), 2, Deputy Chief Personilel Manager, S.E.C.L. Bihspur General Chief Personnel Manager, S.E.C,L. Bilaspur (CG) (C.G.). OJ 4, Deputy General Manager, S,E.C.O. Raigarh Region, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shii Harsh Mahant, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDERgm‘al! (Paseed on this 23rd day of June, 2009} Hearé. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition Challenging the order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexare P/ 1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Raigarh region to Johila region, while he is uilder SuspCnSlOIl. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by order dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure P/9) the petitioner was placed under suspension. By impugned order dated 18.5.2009, during the suspension period the petitioner has been transferred, showing administratiye exigeney. The transfer of the petitioner during suspension is not sustainable in law. z Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to \ ' show any of the provision prohibiting transfer while an employee is placsd under suspansion during pendency of departmentai Snquiry. The sole contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred showing the administrative sxigency, The quastion of administrative exigency does not arise to transfer the petitioner, while he is under suspension. . Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, i do not iind any iiregularity or illegality in the impugned order, transferring the pen'tioner during suspension period. It is Well settled principle of law that n‘ansfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide asto where a particular officer] employee be posted keeping in View public interest as Well as administrau've exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved male. tide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformitv with the miles and regulations. Under the provisions of service rules, employer has all the powers to post an employee at a particular place in View of public interest and due to administrative exigency. The petitioner is not questioning the validity of the transfer order on any other permissible grounds i.e. malaiidi, non—competence of the officer or infraction of the statutoly rules and regulations. In view of the foregoing, this petition is devoid of merit and deseives to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 01. Thatéur Sdk satish K. Agnihotri I Judge v ‘igna