L.P.A. No. 949 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 949 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: October 28, 2009
Suresh Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Sate of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
ORDER
1. The appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single
Judge dismissing his writ petition against the order of transfer.
2. The appellant was employed as assistant in the office of District
Education Officer at Panipat and has rendered about 30 years of service.
The case of the appellant is that respondent No.4, who was posted as
Deputy Director, was facing some proceedings on a complaint made by one
Mukesh employed as a clerk at Panipat. Respondent No.4 approached the
appellant to help her in that complaint by giving an affidavit. But since the
appellant did not help her, she was against him. Later respondent No.4 was
exonerated on account of the report by C.I.D. in her favour and a
recommendation was also made that the appellant may also be transferred.
The case of the appellant further is that the report recommending his
transfer was not based on correct facts and the transfer of the appellant will
L.P.A. No. 949 of 2009 (O&M) 2
cause great hardship to him.
3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that
the transfer being an incidence of service, no interference was called for. It
was also observed that there was nothing to establish that the transfer of the
appellant was at the instance of respondent No.4-Suman.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant for some
time, but having regard to the fact that allegations and counter-allegations
involve disputed questions, we do not express any finding on these issues.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal
and the writ petition without prejudice to the rights of the appellant to make
a representation to the concerned authority in accordance with law.
5. Allowed as prayed for. Dismissed as withdrawn.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
October 28, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH )
prem JUDGE
Note:- Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter …..Yes/No