Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhawani Shanker Vyas vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 November, 2022
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
(1 of 7) [CW-16780/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16780/2022
Bhawani Shanker Vyas S/o Shri Dev Kishan Vyas, Aged About 44
Years, By Caste Vyas, R/o F-105, First Floor, Tirupati Enclave,
Opposite Kothari Hospital, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self
Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director Cum Joint Secretary, Directorate, Local Self
Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Shri Lalit Singh Detha S/o Shri Bhimdan Detha, Village /
Post Borunda, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with
Mr. Kunal Upadhyay.
Mr. S.K. Verma.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 16/11/2022 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 27.10.2022 (Annex.-6), whereby the petitioner has been transferred to Municipal Board, Bayana.
It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that the petitioner, who is working in the Local Self Department since the year 1998, came to be promoted from time to time and was lastly promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector. It is claimed that while the petitioner was working on the post of Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sri Dungargarh, on coming to know of certain (Downloaded on 19/11/2022 at 08:45:28 PM) (2 of 7) [CW-16780/2022] irregularities, the petitioner cancelled certain Pattas and also lodged FIR against the delinquents including the employees of the Municipal Board, Sri Dungargarh. The petitioner also called for explanation from the employee by issuing show cause notice and also placed the said employee under suspension on 20.10.2022. On 20.10.2022 itself, the petitioner was placed Awaiting Posting Orders (Annex.-3) and the respondent No.3 was posted in place of the petitioner. On the next day, the respondent No.3 revoked the suspension of the employee, who was placed under suspension by the petitioner.
Aggrieved of the order dated 20.10.2022, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a second stay application in a pending writ petition being SBCW No. 6785/2020, wherein this Court on 21.10.2022 stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 20.10.2022 placing the petitioner APO. Whereafter, only with a view to frustrate the interim order granted by the Court, on 27.10.2022 (Annex.-6) order was passing transferring the petitioner to Municipal Board, Bayana.
It is alleged that on 28.10.2022, respondent No.3 forcibly entered the office of the Executive Officer by breaking locks and alongwith 15-20 persons and physically assaulted the petitioner, which aspect was reported in the newspapers, the petitioner also lodged FIR in this regard on 31.10.2022 and on the said date, the petitioner was placed under suspension by indicating that inquiry was pending against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner by order dated 27.10.2022 (Annex.-6), is ex-facie, malafide, inasmuch as, (Downloaded on 19/11/2022 at 08:45:28 PM) (3 of 7) [CW-16780/2022] the same essentially is to protect the wrongdoers against whom the petitioner took action by cancelling illegal Pattas and initiated proceeding by lodging FIR, which aspect is apparent from the fact that as soon as the order dated 20.10.2022 placing the petitioner APO was made, on 21.10.2022, the respondent No.3 reinstated the employee, who was suspended by the petitioner.
Further submissions have been made that the State Government, by order dated 01.08.2022 had imposed ban on transfers and by its communication dated 23.03.2022, had alerted against violation of the ban imposed, however, the respondents have indulged in the same exercise, regarding which, the alert was issued on 23.03.2022 and as such, the transfer of the petitioner being in violation of ban, deserves to be set aside.
Submissions have also been made that the order dated 27.10.2022 is a singular order transferring the petitioner, which itself reflects that the petitioner has been targeted for being shifted from Sri Dungargarh to Bayana and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
It is also alleged that the order has been passed only with a view to frustrate the interim order granted by this Court on 21.10.2022, which vitiates the order and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to interim order dated 07.11.2022 in Tej Kumar v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 16125/2022. Further reliance has been placed on order in Lalit Singh Detha v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 7136/2022 wherein with reference to the circular dated 23.03.2022, interim order was granted by the Court. (Downloaded on 19/11/2022 at 08:45:28 PM)
(4 of 7) [CW-16780/2022] Learned AAG appearing for the respondents on caveat made submissions that the allegations made in the petition are ex-facie incorrect and as such the petition deserves dismissal.
Submissions have been made that the petitioner was transferred to Sri Dungargarh on 31.08.2018 and ever since, the petitioner is serving at the same place and it cannot be said that the petitioner was not ripe for transfer.
It was further pointed out that earlier also the petitioner was placed APO, which order was recalled, another APO order was passed on 04.08.2020, which came to be stayed by this Court on 06.08.2020 and again when order dated 20.10.2022 placing the petitioner APO was passed, the same was also stayed by this Court on 21.10.2022 and thereafter, it was thought appropriate to transfer the petitioner and, therefore, he was transferred from Sri Dungargarh to Bayana by order dated 27.10.2022.
Further submissions have been made that merely because the orders placing the petitioner APO were stayed, wherein the challenge of the petitioner essentially was limited to the fact that the said orders were in violation of the instructions issued under Rule 25-A of RSR, 1951, the passing of the order of regular transfer, cannot be said to be in violation of the said interim orders.
It was submitted that the various submissions made regarding the altercation etc. between the petitioner and the respondent No.3, are inconsequential insofar as passing of the order on 27.10.2022 is concerned.
(Downloaded on 19/11/2022 at 08:45:28 PM)
(5 of 7) [CW-16780/2022] It was emphasized that the imposing of the ban, by itself cannot take away the jurisdiction of the respondents in passing the order of transfer, in case of administrative exigency.
It was submitted that the attempt of the petitioner, is to somehow to continue to remain posted at Sri Dungargarh, for which the petitioner has no right in law and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
Reliance was placed on Jaisingh Chouhan v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 11596/2022, decided on 18.08.2022.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
A perusal of the material indicates that the petitioner was transferred to the present place of posting by order dated 31.08.2018. The previous attempts made by the respondents for displacing the petitioner by passing orders placing the petitioner APO, came to a naught on account of first recalling the order and on two occasions when this Court intervened and stayed the orders placing the petitioner APO.
Apparently till then it did not dawn on the respondents that placing the petitioner APO was not the correct mode for exercising of the power to transfer and ultimately on 27.10.2022, the order impugned was passed by regularly transferring the petitioner to Municipal Board, Bayana.
The petitioner has sought to question the said order with reference to the action initiated by him against the alleged illegal Pattas and the employees involved in the same.
As apparently, action of the petitioner to pass orders with regard to the Pattas, were only in his official capacity, to expect (Downloaded on 19/11/2022 at 08:45:28 PM) (6 of 7) [CW-16780/2022] that once the petitioner has taken action in this regard, till such time that the same reaches a conclusion, the petitioner needs to remain posted at the same place, such expectation is essentially misplaced, inasmuch as, the said period would be indefinite and for all this period, the petitioner cannot claim as of right to continue to remain posted at the place where he has initiated the proceedings.
So far as the challenge laid based on the ban imposed by the Administrative Reforms and Coordination Department dated 01.08.2022, which related to specifically officers involved in the Prashashan Shaharon Ke Sang Programme, is concerned, the said ban, imposed essentially is for the purpose of regulation of the programme in a proper manner and cannot be stretched to the extent that the same would render the orders passed by the competent authority as without jurisdiction.
This Court in the case of Jaisingh Chouhan (supra), inter alia, came to the following conclusion:-
"Further, insofar as the ban imposed by order dated 01.08.2022 by the Administrative Reforms and Coordination Department is concerned, the same does not take away the jurisdiction/right to pass order and on that count alone it cannot be said that order dated 10.08.2022 (Annex.10) is without jurisdiction."
So far as the orders passed in the case of Tej Kumar (supra) and Lalit Singh Detha (supra) are concerned, the same are only interim in nature, whereas the order in the case of Jaisingh Chouhan (supra) is a final order.
In view of the above discussion, no case is made out for interfering in the order dated 27.10.2022, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sri Dungargarh to Bayana. (Downloaded on 19/11/2022 at 08:45:28 PM)
(7 of 7) [CW-16780/2022] So far as the submissions made regarding the events of 31.10.2022 are concerned, howsoever unfortunate the said events may be, the same by itself cannot vitiate the order of transfer dated 27.10.2022. For the alleged wrongs committed by respondent No.3 the law would take its own course.
In view of the above discussions, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 128-PKS/-
(Downloaded on 19/11/2022 at 08:45:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)