Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40461 of 2010 Petitioner :- Adesh Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Nisheeth Yadav,Shri C. B. Yadav Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of transfer
dated 15th June 2010, by which petitioner, who is working as a
Inspector in Economic Offence Wing, has been transferred from
Meerut to Chitrakootdham. According to the petitioner, he has
investigated the matter and due to certain reasons he was got
involved in a criminal case which is pending before the Muzaffar
Nagar Court. As the petitioner was made accused, therefore, he has
to obtain bail and it was directed that the petitioner has to appear
before the Court as and when the date is fixed. According to the
petitioner, if he is transferred to Chitrakootdham and the order of
transfer is not cancelled or stayed till the criminal trial is over that
will be in mere violation of the High Court’s direction. Further, it
is also not possible for the petitioner to attend each and every date
fixed at Muzzafar Nagar as the trial is going on about day to day
and dates are being fixed within a gap of three or four days. When
petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid fact, he
immediately approached the Director General of Police stating all
the relevant facts and an assurance to that effect was given by the
competent authority that his order of transfer will be stayed, but
the Inspector General (Establishment) is not obeying the order and
has directed to relieve the petitioner and in pursuance of said order
petitioner has been relieved, though the claim of the petitioner has
been recommended by the petitioner’s immediate Officer under
whom he is working. Further, petitioner submits that on
22.06.2010 he has submitted a detailed and comprehensive
representation stating all the things, but it has not yet been
considered and decided.
I have considered the submissions of parties and perused the
record. I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner appears
to be genuine, but as it is a case of transfer, normally this Court
does not interfere and cannot direct the authority to place a
particular employee at a particular place because it is the total
domain of the competent authority to place their employees at a
particular place according to their efficiency and necessity.
Therefore, this Court cannot pass any affirmative order regarding
placing of the government employee to a particular place, but in
the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be appropriate that
respondent No.2 may consider the grievances of the petitioner
according to law. Therefore, a liberty is given to the petitioner to
approach the respondent No.2 by making a detailed and
comprehensive representation annexing all the relevant documents
within a period of two weeks and if such representation is filed
respondent No.2 is directed to consider the same and take
appropriate decision taking into consideration all the relevant
factors raised by the petitioner and will pass a detailed and
reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of the representation. Further, it is provided that no
disciplinary action may be initiated against the petitioner for non
joining till the decision is taken upon the representation.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.7.2010
NS