WP(C) 374/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Finance. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-8 order dated 3.1.2011, by w hich while reinstating her in service upon revocation of the order of suspension , she has been posted in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaon Zone. Prior to placing her under suspension, she was working as Superintendent o f Taxes, Golaghat Unit. According to the petitioner, upon her reinstatement in s ervices, she should have been so reinstated in the same office instead of postin g her in another office. The aforesaid order of reinstatement has been passed pursuant to the ord er dated 10.11.2010, passed by this court in WP(C) No. 5410/2010. In the said wr it petition, the petitioner had challenged the order of suspension. The writ pet ition was disposed of directing the authorities to consider as to whether contin ued suspension of the petitioner was necessary. The allegation against the petitioner for which she was placed under sus pension is reflected in Annexure-3 show cause notice dated 20.3.2010. As per the said allegations, while the petitioner was working as Superintendent of Taxes i n the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Sivasagar during the period from 21.1.2007 to 14.10.2009, she had registered 7(seven) dealers under the Ass am Value Added Tax Act, 2003, very carelessly and with undue haste without follo wing the normal registration procedure and without ascertaining the genuineness of the dealers business. According to the said allegation, there was financial l oss to the tune of Rs. 40,01,837/-. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the peti tioner has been reinstated in service upon revocation of the order of suspension and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not completed 3 years at Golaghat, she should be allowed to continue in the same office, more particularl y, in view of ongoing academic session pertaining to the studies undertaken by h er son. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Finance, on the other hand subm its that this transfer has been made in the interest of public service. The peti tioner upon her reinstatement has been posted to the Zonal office at Nagaon inst ead of retaining her in the same office. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have dealt with the contentions raised in the writ petition. It has been reiterated that the pet itioner was responsible for loss of revenue to the tune of about Rs. 40 lakhs du ring her posting as Superintendent of Taxes in Sivasagar Unit. It has also been brought on record that pursuant to placing the petitioner under suspension, one Shri A.K. Handique, Superintendent of Taxes was posted in her place. As regards the allegation that one Shri Paban Saikia, Superintendent of Taxes, although has completed 3(three) years at Golaghat, has not been transferred. The stand in th e affidavit is that the said Shri Saikia will be transferred as per norms on com pletion of current financial year, so that the revenue collection at the fag end of the financial year would not affect. The affidavit further disclose that hav ing regard to the allegation against the petitioner, the departmental authoritie s did not think fit to post her in a unit and she has been posted in a Zonal off ice at Nagaon. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record. The allegation, on the basis of which t he petitioner was placed under suspension, has been noted above. If, on the basi s of the said allegations, the authority decided not to post the petitioner agai n in a Unit, no fault can be attributed to the said authority. The authority, up on reinstatement of the petitioner, instead of posting her in a Unit has posted her in a Zonal Office, which is at Nagaon. The petitioner, upon revocation of th e order of suspension cannot claim reinstatement in her former post and it is up to the authority to decide as to whether her posting in the same place of postin g is conducive or not. The authority decided to post her in a Zonal Office on th e grounds assigned in the counter affidavit. The said grounds cannot be said to the basis of any arbitrary exercise of power. Further, transfer being an inciden t of service, the petitioner cannot claim that she should be allowed to continue in her former place of posting irrespective of the allegation levelled against her. For all the aforesaid reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the ord er of reinstatement with the posting order passed on 3.1.2011 (Annexure-8). Writ petition stands dismissed.