^^ 1^7- S.B. (SeCTice Matter) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION(S) N0. ( ^£3> /2010. PETITIONER: Respondents ,/°..•''/ /" ^s' <^^y "..C'/>\~K/' /c'^/ <%'.>• -.<•• ^ <>t"•^ Smt.Asha Kushwaha, wife of N.S.Kushwaha, aged about 42 years, working as A.N.M. at Deputy Community Healfh Center, Pataud (Dhanelikanhar), District Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Chhatdsgarh. versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3. Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Dhanelikanhar, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA % HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETmON CS) No. 1483 of2010 PETITIONER : Smt. Asba. Kushwaha. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChliattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satisfa K. Agmhofri, J. Present: Shri C.J.K.Rao, Advocateforthepetitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passsd on 06th day of April, 2010) 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 18.03.2010 (AnnexMre P/l) passed by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Nortli Bastar, Kanker, whereby the petitioner, working as Rural Health Coordinator (Women) has been repatriated back to liis original post i.e. Sub Health Centre, Koliyari (Dhaneli Kanhar) from Sub Health Centre, Pataud (Dhaiieli Kanhar). 2. Leamed counsel appearing for tfae petitioner submits that earlier, the petitioner was placed under suspension oa 09.10.2006 (Armexure P/2) by tlie respondeiit No. 2. At that point oftime, the petitioner was servini at Sub Health Centi-e, Shanitara. During the period of suspension, the head quarter ofthe petitioner was changed to Sub Health Centre, Mulle, BIock Antagarh. Later on, vide order dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P/3), tlie suspension of the petitioner was revoked and flie petitioner was posted at the present place ofposting i.e. Sub HeaMi Centre, Pataud. 3. Shri Rao fin-ther subniits that the depai-tmental enquiry has not been compieted till date, and in order to harass the petitioner, her headquarter is being ehaaged frequently and by the iiitpugned order 18.03.2010 (,'^nnexure P/'l), she has again been sent back to her original place of posting i.e. Sub Health Centre, Koliyari'(Dhanelikanliar). 4. On flie other hand, Sliri Roy, leanied Paiiel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits fhat earlier, the headquarter of the petitioner was chaaged as the petitioner was placed under suspension. A&er revoking the suspension order, fhe petitioner has been sent back to liis ^;s?^^^ Aisit origina! place of posting. Thus, there is no infmmty or illegality in the impugned order. 5. Heard rival contentions of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings aiid documenfs appended thereto. 6. The petitioner was earlier traasferred fi-om Sub Healtli Centi-e, Shamtara to Sub Health Centre, Mulle, Block Aatagarh bn account ofthe fact that she was placed under suspension. The headquarter ofthe petitioner was changed keepiag ui vievv pendency of departmental enquiry to avoid undue mfluence m fhe proceedings of departmental enquiry and likely tampering with the records. 7. Later on, after revoking the suspension order, the petitioner was transfeired and posted to Sub Healfh Centi-e, Pataud. It was made clear in the order dated 15.12.2006 (Amiexure P/3), that the departmental enquir^' shall go on. Later on, by impugned order dated 18.03.2010(Annexure P/l), the petitioner was sent back to his original piace of posting i.e. Sub Health Centre, Koliyari (Dhanelikanhar). The petitioner has failed to establish asto what prejudice is caused to her by the impugned transfer order. The petitioner has not challenged the said order on aay adinissible ground i.e. lack ofcompetence ofthe offica' passing tlie order, malafide or violation of statutoty rules or regulatioiis. Even, fhe impugned order has been passed after three years ofrevokla^ Ifae suspension order. Thus, it caimot be held that the petitioner is being harassed by transferring her frequently. Thus, no interference is vvarraiited wilh the order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure P/l). 8. Accordingly, fhe writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, so far as pendency of departmental enquiry is coiicemed, since fhe petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.10.2006 and thereaiter. her suspension was revoked on 15.12.2006 and more thaa three years have elapsed, it is expected that the respondent authorities may conclude the departmental enquiry as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge