Allahabad High Court
Tasleem Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors on 26 September, 2014
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 49620 of 2014
Petitioner :- Tasleem Ahmad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bheem Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard.
The petitioner who is a Lekhpal was transferred from Circle Pandit Nagla to Circle Gataura vide order dated 8.8.2014 issued by the Tehsildar concerned after approval of the same by the SDM on 7.8.2014.
The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid transfer order before this Court vide WP A No. 45898 of 2014 wherein certain orders were passed on 2.9.2014 and 8.9.2014. Ultimately the writ petition was dismissed on 16.9.2014 with the following observations:
"A perusal of the order of the S.D.M. dated 7.8.14 reveals that the proposal was placed by the Tehsildar before the S.D.M. for transferring 12 lekhpals, including the petitioner herein, from one circle to another and the said proposal has been approved by the S.D.M. concerned. Thereafter, consequent to the approval of the S.D.M. dated 7.8.14, the Tehsildar himself has issued the order of transfer dated 8.8.14. Stricto sensu, the issuance of the order of transfer, is not in consonance with the letter and spirit of the provisions contained in Rule 24 (1) of the U.P. Lekhpal Service Rules, 2006, as under that provision, order should be passed by the concerned S.D.M. himself, but considering the fact that the proposal for transfer was approved by the concerned S.D.M. on 7.8.14, there is substantial compliance of the said provision and it cannot be said that the impugned order of transfer suffers from any illegality. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any valid ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, it is made clear that in future the respondent authority shall strictly adhere to the letter and spirit of the relevant Rules while making such transfers.
Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed.
In any event, the dismissal of this writ petition will have no adverse bearing on the challenge made by the petitioner to the order of suspension, which he has made in some other writ petition."
During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner had informed that he had been placed under suspension, therefore, the observation was made therein that the dismissal of the writ petition against the transfer shall not have any adverse bearing of any challenge made to the order of suspension. Thereafter this writ petition was filed challenging the order of suspension dated 16.8.2014 by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that he has not handed over the charge of the post in question in pursuance to the transfer order dated 7.8.2014.
One of the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of suspension is ante-dated. In this regard, he invites the attention of the court to the application filed by certain persons before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar (the SDM) under section 143 whereupon the concerned SDM requisitioned a report from the Tehsildar, Sadar on 22.8.2014. In response thereto the report is said to have been submitted on the same date duly signed by the Lekhpal i.e. petitioner, Naib Tehsildar and the Teshildar. A copy of the said report has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition which contains signature of the petitioner. Based on the aforesaid, it is said that being peeved by filing of the earlier writ petition against the transfer order, the respondents have passed the ante-dated of suspension dated 16.8.2014. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is ready to handover the charge but on account of suspension order, he is being prevented.
Be that as it may and without drawing any conclusive opinion with regard to the suspension order being ante-dated, as, no major punishment would be imposed upon the petitioner based on the allegations contained in the suspension order, the suspension order is not justified. The order dated 16.8.2014 is accordingly set aside. The petitioner shall handover the complete charge of the post in question within 7 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. He shall also furnish an undertaking before the SDM concerned to the effect that in future he shall not withhold the handing over of charge in the event any order of transfer is passed. The inquiry against the petitioner may go on and the same shall be completed expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before him.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2014/SKS
