R.S. Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2011

0
84
Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.S. Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2011
                                                                   1




                    W.A.No.1008/11

R.S.Tripathi                                  State of M.P. & others




14.10.2011
      Shri V.K.Shukla, Counsel for appellant.
       This appeal is directed against an order dated 9.9.2011
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9957/11
by which writ petition preferred by the appellant/petitioner
assailing the order dated 7.6.2011 transferring the appellant
from the post as Incharge CMO, Nagar Panchayat, Pali to his
substantive post at Dhanpuri, District Anuppur, was dismissed.
       Learned counsel for appellant submitted:-
(I)    That, respondent No.3 who has been made Incharge

CMO at Nagar Panchayat, Pali is facing a departmental enquiry
and charge of embezzlement of more than Rs.5 Lakhs is
against him, but spite of this, he has been made Incharge
CMO in place of appellant.

(ii) That, at Dhanpuri, there is no post of Revenue Sub-
Inspector where appellant has been posted by the respondents.

Learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects
in the impugned order and found that there was no substance in
the petition.

So far as first contention of the appellant that there are
allegations against respondent No.3 who has been made
Incharge CMO in place of appellant is concerned, it is for the
respondent No.1/2 to look into the matter, but merely on this
ground, the transfer order of appellant cannot be interfered. So
far as second contention of the appellant is concerned, the
appellant may join at the transferred place and in case,
appellant is not paid salary, appellant may submit his
representation to respondent No.1 who shall forthwith see that
the appellant is paid his salary immediately after joining at
Dhanpuri, District Anuppur. Considering peculiar facts of the
case, we allow an opportunity to the appellant to submit a fresh
representation against the transfer order, but only after joining at
2

W.A.No.1008/11

R.S.Tripathi State of M.P. & others

14.10.2011
Dhanpuri, District Anuppur. If such a representation is made by
the appellant to respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 shall
consider and decide the aforesaid representation expeditiously.
In the representation, appellant may raise all the contentions
and file documents alongwith the representation which shall be
considered by the respondent No.1 while deciding the
representation.

With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is disposed
of finally.

C.C. as per rules.



       (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)                        (Smt.Vimla Jain)
C.             Judge                                    Judge
 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *