Girja Iyer vs State of M.P.

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the part of the order dated 31.4.2014 passed by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Khandwa, respondent no.3 whereby while reinstating the petitioner and revoking her suspension she has been directed to be posted at Community Health Centre, Chhaigaon Makhan and not at her original place of posting at Shahri Pariwar Kalyan Kendra, Khandwa.

The sole ground on which the petitioner has filed the present petition is that the impugned order shifting the petitioner from Khandwa to Chhaigaon Makhan on her reinstatement is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Others Vs. Dr. R.K. Shahstri and Another, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as under :-

"Appellate Authority has no power while considering an appeal against an order of suspension or while revoking the suspension to direct transfer of an employee or making the revocation or suspension subject to the employee reporting at �Appellate Authority has on the place of transfer."

It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, the impugned order dated 30.4.2014 by which the petitioner on her reinstatement has been transferred and posted from Khandwea to Chhaigaon Makhan deserves to be quashed and the petitioner also deserves to be reinstated and re- posted at Shahri Pariwar Kalyan Kendra, Khandwa itself.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

From a perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. R.K. Shashtri (Supra) it is evident that the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph 9.2 of the order relate to and were made in reference to the Appellate Authority exercising powers under Rule 27 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules") and not with reference to the Rule 9 (5). Quite apart from the above, in paragraph 11 of the aforesaid decision in the case of Dr. R.K. Shashtri (Supra), it has been held that after permitting an employee to join duties, he may be transferred on administrative considerations, if so required.

In W.P. No. 18038/2012 (S) decided on 31.10.2012, a learned single Judge of this Court has considered this aspect and stated that in such cases the order should be deemed to be one of reposting the petitioner at the same place and thereafter deemed transfer to the place of new posting as in most cases it is expedient and in the interest of administrative exigencies to post a reinstated employee at some other place.

Similar view has been taken by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 16617/2012 decided on 10.10.2012 after considering the D.B. decision rendered in the case of Dr. R.K. Shashtri (Supra).

It is also pointed out that in the case of Dheer Singh Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, , by taking the aforesaid aspect into consideration a learned single Judge of this Court has distinguished the judgment in the case of Dr. R.K. Shashtri (Supra) on facts.

That part, it is also pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 5547/2001 decided on 6.3.2002 in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Sri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate reported in I.L.R. 2003 M.P. 491 has held that revocation of an order of suspension does not confer a premium on the officer concerned to treat it as a privilege and put forth a claim as a matter of right to be retained at the place where he was posted.

Apparently, the decision in the case of Sri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate (Supra) was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench which had decided the case of Dr. R.K. Shashtri (Supra).

What would be the impact of the aforesaid in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jabalpur Bus Operators Association V. State of M.P. and others reported in 2003 (1) M.P.L.J. 531 is not being taken up in the present case as it is informed at the bar that the decision in the case of Dr. R.K. Shashtri (Supra) has already been referred to a larger Bench and is pending decision.

In the instant case, the impugned order has not been passed by the appellate authority but has been passed by the disciplinary authority. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30-4-2014 makes it further clear that the authority has finally decided the departmental proceedings and has imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments non- cumulatively and while doing so has reinstated the petitioner and has thereafter transferred her to Chhaigaon Makhan.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that similar orders as passed by this Court in W.P.No. 18038/2012 (S), decided on 31-10-2012 and in W.P.No. 16617/2012, decided on 10-10-2012 deserves to be passed in the present case also.

Accordingly in terms of the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions, it is directed that the impugned order dated 30.4.2014 shall be treated as an order reinstating the petitioner at her original place and thereafter transferring her to Chhaigaon Makhan.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.