Judgment:
Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Mishra versus South Eastern Coalfields LTD.Writ Petition No.17897 ”
7. 11.2012: Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel respondents.
Challenging his so called transfer/change of Headquarters ordered by the competent authority by the impugned orders dated 10.10.2012 and 12.10.2012, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Petitioner is working as Senior Safety-Cum-Production Assistant in Nowrozabad Colliery, Johilla Area, District Umariya.
Records indicate that while petitioner was so working a raid was conducted in his house by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 31.5.2012 and a criminal case has been registered against him on the allegation of possession of income beyond the known source of income.
On the basis of the aforesaid act petitioner was suspended vide order Annexure P-1 dated 12.10.2012 and vide order dated 10.10.2012 Annexure P-2 he is transferred/shifted from Johilla Area to Bhatgaon area.
Interalia contending that on suspension an employee cannot be transferred in the manner done and further pointing out that petitioner was earlier transferred vide Annexure P-2 on 10.10.2012 to Bhatgaon area and not once he is under suspension he cannot be relieved while on suspension and transferred, this writ petition has been filed.
It is indicated by Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel that the reasons given for transferring/shifting headquarter of petitioner is not correct because even though before shifting headquarter of petitioner, he is transferred and as the entire action is taken at the instance of authorities of Central Bureau of Investigation the same is unsustainable.
By pointing out that 2 petitioner would be adversely effected, if he is transferred, in the matter of defending him in the criminal case lodged by Central Bureau of Investigation and shifting of headquarter is not necessary for effective enquiry, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Shri Greeshm Jain, refuted the aforesaid and submits that after raid was conducted on 31.5.2012, petitioner was immediately transferred vide Annexure P-2 dated 10.10.2012 and thereafter he was suspended on 12.10.2012, not his headquarter is being changed, while on suspension and incorrectly not in the relieving order dated 12.10.2012, it is shown as transfer.
It is the case of respondents that as serious allegation of misconduct are alleged against petitioner and matter is under investigation and as such he has been suspended and his headquarter is changed and in doing so respondents have not committed any error.
By filing the requisite vigilance manual governing suspension and communication received from the office of the Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation and Note-sheets by which the decision was taken for shifting headquarter of petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain submits that an independent decision has been taken by the competent authority, the decision is not influenced by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The CBI has only recommended for change of Headquarter and as the same is considered by the disciplinary authority independently, as is evident from note-sheet page 13 of the return, Shri Greeshm Jain submits that there is no error or illegality in the action of respondents warranting interference into the matter.
3 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Petitioner while working in the department was proceeded against and in a raid conducted in his residence huge amount of case and other materials have been seized and the case of possessing properties and income beyond the known source of earning is registered against petitioner.
After the raid was conducted on 31.5.2012 it seems that petitioner was initially transferred, but subsequently looking to the seriousness of matter and to facilitate proper inquiry and investigation petitioner has been suspended and during the period of suspension as headquarter has been changed the impugned action, as detailed hereinabove, the suspension or change of headquarter is not shown to be in violation of any statutory rules or regulation, not is any malafide established.
From the material available on record it is only stated that disciplinary authority or competent authority has not independently assessed the situation but only because the authorities of Central Bureau of Investigation vide Annexure P-2 have sought for suspension of petitioner, the action is taken.
However, from the vigilance manual available on record and note- sheet which produced it is seen that the decision to change the headquarter is taken by the competent authority.
The competent authority after taking note of various factors has taken an independent decision and it cannot be said that the action is vitiated due to any external influence or force.
Petitioner is suspended because there are serious allegation against him and even on administrative consideration also petitioner's headquarter can be changed.
That being so, in the absence of any statutory 4 rules or regulations or provisions being shown to be violated, interference into matter by this Court is not called for.
Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit an appeal to the competent authority, in case he has any grievance in the matter, finding no case for interference this petition is dismissed.
The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-