Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 60719 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 2139 (9 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60719 of 2005

Jagdish Prasad Sharma

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of order dated 24.08.2005 passed by District Magistrate, Aligarh, rejecting his representation against order of his  transfer.

Brief background of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that petitioner was transferred from Tehsil Atrauli. Petitioner did not comply with the said order of transfer contending that it was not served upon him. On 08.01.2004 petitioner requested for cancellation of his transfer order, on which endorsement was made to consider the matter for cancellation of transfer of petitioner. As nothing was done in the matter, petitioner approached this Court by preferring writ petition No. 2241 of 2005, questioning the validity of transfer order. Writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2005. Special Appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed. However, liberty was given to petitioner to move fresh representation, but the Division Bench did not permit the petitioner to continue on the present place of posting and not to comply with the order of transfer. Petitioner till date has not complied with the transfer order, and as representation has been rejected, he has again approached this Court.

Counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that the representation of petitioner petitioner has been considered and the same has been rejected. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed, and therein the statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit has been disputed and it has been contended that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by issuing charge sheet, to which petitioner has submitted his reply. Petitioner has contended that he has not been relieved.

After pleadings, referred to above, have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of parties.

Learned counsel for petitioner, contended with vehemence that the order dated 24.08.2005 and the order of transfer dated 03.10.2003 are liable to be quashed, as there  is no objection consideration, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that cogent and valid reasons have been assigned, and there is no scope of interference.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which emerges is to the effect that petitioner did not comply with the order of transfer. Writ petition filed against order of transfer had been dismissed. Special Appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed. However, liberty was given to petitioner to move fresh representation. District Magistrate has considered the grievance of petitioner and thereafter cogent reasons have been assigned for rejecting the representation of petitioner contending that story set up by petitioner is imaginary and far away from truth. Petitioner holds transferable post. Petitioner has miserably failed to comply with the order of transfer. In this background, there is no scope of interference with the order of transfer as well as order rejecting representation. As till date petitioner has not complied with the order of transfer, it is always open to the authorities concerned to initiate disciplinary proceeding for noncompliance of the transfer order. There is hardly any scope of interference. Writ petition lacks substance, and the same is dismissed.

09.02.2007

SRY.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.