Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Chandra Banodha vs Directorate Of Health Services on 1 December, 2015
WP-7822-2015
(PRAKASH CHANDRA BANODHA Vs DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES)
01-12-2015
Shri P. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard on admission and interim relief. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.10.2015 whereby the petitioner on revocation of suspension has been posted at Agar.
The case of the petitioner is that he was working as CMHO, Ujjain from where he was placed under suspension and now by the impugned order, on the revocation of suspension he has not been posted at the same place from where he was suspended but he has been transferred and posted to a different place at Agar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled to be posted on the same place from where he was suspended on revocation of the order of suspension. He further submits that the impugned order of transfer after revocation of suspension is unsustainable.
Counsel for the State has opposed the writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the issue if an employee on revocation of order of suspension is required to be posted on the same place has been examined by the full bench of this Court by the judgment dated 14.9.2015 passed in W.P.No.7440/2013 in the matter of Asif Mohd. Khan Vs. The State of M.P. And another wherein the full bench has held that by a composite order, the competent authority can revoke the suspension and simultaneously transfer the employees to another place in public interest. It has further been held that if the authority is competent, he can revoke the suspension and can also transfer the employee. It is open to such an authority to pass the composite order if the situation warrants and whether the transfer can stand the trust of judicial scrutiny it will be an independent issue to be decided on the settled legal principles. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the impugned order of revocation of suspension and transfer of the petitioner to a different place has been passed by the competent authority, hence the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality in this regard. So far as the issue of transfer of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been posted at a distant place and the petitioner's wife is in the Government service and is posted at Jawad and his two sons are studying at Mandsaur, but such a ground does not warrant any interference, since undisputedly during the suspension period, the head quarter of the petitioner was fixed as Ujjain and he was not at Jawad or Mandsaur.
Every transfer involves some personal problems and inconvenience to the family but that alone does not furnish a ground to interfere in the order of transfer, unless, the order is shown to have been passed in violation of any statutory provisions or suffers from the vice of the mala-fides, which, in the present case does not exists.
In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE