Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHUPINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. - CWP-9575-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 2784 (2 May 2006)

CWP No. 9575 of 2005 Page numbers

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

CWP No. 9575 of 2005

Date of Decision: 25.4.2006

Bhupinder Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others.

....Respondents.

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Patwalia

Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupinder Singh, petitioner in person also.

Mr. B.S. Chahal, A.A.G., Punjab

for respondents No.1 to 4.

Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, Advocate and

Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate

for respondent No.5.

...

J.S. Khehar, J.

The petitioner is a handicapped person. The disability in his right forearm is to the extent of 60%. In March, 2002, he was transferred from Jalandhar to Abohar, as Deputy Collector. It is alleged by the petitioner, that while he was posted at Abohar, he had received letters from Mr. Rajinder Kumar Rinwa, Chairman, Zila Parishad, Ferozepur (respondent No.2) and Mr. Mohinder Singh Rinwa, Chairman, Punjab Tubewell Corporation (respondent No.3) for favours. On account of the CWP No. 9575 of 2005 Page numbers

fact, that the petitioner did not accede to the requests made by respondents No.2 and 3, he was transferred, at their behest, by an order dated 31.5.2003, from Abohar to Bathinda.

Aggrieved by his order of transfer from Abohar to Bathinda, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.9062 of

2003. This Court, on entertaining the aforesaid writ petition, in the first instance, stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 31.5.2003.

During the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No.9062 of 2003, the petitioner's order of transfer from Abohar to Bathinda, was withdrawn.

Consequently, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, on 9.3.2004. As a consequence of the factual position depicted in the instant paragraph, it is apparent, that ever since the transfer of the petitioner from Jalandhar to Abohar, in March, 2002, he has remained at Abohar, uninterruptedly.

Once again, by an order dated 3.6.2005 (Annexure P-8) i.e., two years after his earlier transfer in 2003, which he successfully challenged in this Court, the petitioner has once again been transferred, this time from Abohar to Ropar. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the aforesaid order dated 3.6.2005. The contention of the petitioner again is, that the instant order of transfer has been passed extraneously, at the behest of respondents No.2 and 3. While issuing notice of motion in the instant writ petition, the operation of the order of transfer Annexure P-8, was stayed on 14.6.2005. The respondents have filed their replies, and in response thereto, the petitioner has also filed separate replications.

In the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents CWP No. 9575 of 2005 Page numbers

No.1 to 4, the reason for transferring the petitioner from Abohar to Ropar, has been depicted in the preliminary objection, which is extracted hereunder:-

"That the petitioner is working as Deputy Collector, Abohar Canal Division, Abohar, District Ferozepur under the supervision of respondent No.4. Petitioner was transferred vide order dated 3rd

June, 2005, issued vide Endst. No.1/38/05- 1 IP2/10213-20, dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure P-8) on administrative grounds because the respondent No.4 brought to the notice of respondent No.1 that he had abused the quasi- judicial powers delegated to him by changing his decision arbitrarily with malafide intention by cutting and inserting additional words. He had disobeyed the orders of his superiors. By indulging in blackmailing tactics impersonating himself as a higher Irrigation Checking Officer from Bathinda, he had insulted the immediate boss by writing letters in indecent language. He had refused to receive official letters.

The petitioner has also tried to spoil the atmosphere of the office by making groupism. Therefore, keeping in view the circumstances, the Government has rightly transferred him from Abohar to Ropar on purely administrative grounds. The petitioner has submitted the application in this Hon'ble Court to get the transfer stayed by concealing the real facts of the case.

Further a complaint regarding sexual harassment by a Government School Lecturer is also pending enquiry against him."

CWP No. 9575 of 2005 Page numbers

During the course of hearing, after the learned counsel for the petitioner had addressed arguments, the petitioner stood up to plead his own case. His primary contention was, that the instant order of transfer besides being based on extraneous considerations, and besides being malafide, is also in clear violation of the order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9062 of 2003, wherein, the petitioner had impugned the order of his transfer dated 31.5.2003, from Abohar to Bathinda successfully.

Additionally, the petitioner wishes us to allow him to continue at Abohar for another period of seven months.

Having considered the matter in its totality, we are satisfied, that the claim made by the petitioner through the instant writ petition, cannot be accepted. Acceptance of the claim made by the petitioner, would amount to allowing him to continue at Abohar, perpetuately. Undoubtedly, when a plea against an order of transfer is raised at the hands of an employee before a judicial forum, the Court has the authority to interfere with the same. In terms of the precedents and the decisions rendered by this Court and by the Apex Court, interference in such matters must be limited to examination of allegations of malafide, extraneous considerations and also violation of statutory provisions.

It is not possible for us to accept the allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondents No.2 and 3, in so far as, the instant impugned order dated 3.6.2005, is concerned, on account of the fact, that the order of his transfer dated 31.5.2003, allegedly passed at the behest of the said respondents, was earlier stayed by this Court, and subsequently unilaterally withdrawn by the authorities, the aforesaid two respondents in the absence of any cogent material, cannot, merely on the asking of the petitioner, be CWP No. 9575 of 2005 Page numbers

held to be responsible for the instant transfer of the petitioner. The assertions made in the preliminary objection of the joint written statement, filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, cannot be over-looked. We have no reason to doubt the veracity of the assertions recorded therein. In the background of the allegations contained in the preliminary objection (extracted above), we are satisfied, that the respondents were wholly justified in transferring the petitioner from Abohar to Ropar.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

The observations recorded by us, hereinabove, should not be treated, as an expression of opinion, in respect of the factual position noticed in the preliminary objection, extracted in the instant order.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge.

( P.S. Patwalia )

Judge.

25.04.2006

sk.


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.