T.S. PATHARE Vs. C.G. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner had filed W.P. (s) No. 5442/08 against his transfer order dated 26.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to decide representation of the petitioner against his transfer expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure P-5).

(2.) MR. Kesharwani, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that from bare perusal of the impugned order by which the representation has been rejected it is evident that the petitioner has been transferred on the basis of certain complaints by way of punishment and as such, the same is punitive in nature. Punishment by way of transfer has been imposed without following the principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on AIR 1984 SC 115 State of U.P. and Anr. v. Jagdeo Singh and another. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 vide impugned order of Annexure P-5 has rejected the representation of the petitioner against his transfer to Dantewada by detailed order. In Para-2 of the impugned order it is mentioned that the petitioner was transferred from District Durg to Mahasamund as there were complaints against the petitioner that he was continuously absent from Saja Centre without permission, however, the petitioner was again transferred from Mahasamund to Head Quarter Finance Department at his own cost. The order also mentions that there is shortage of staff in the District Manager's Office, Dantewada and therefore, with a view to post an experienced employee and considering the complaints against the behaviour and work of the petitioner, he was transferred to District Office Dantewada.