Chattisgarh High Court
Ashwani Kumar Mire vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 January, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 250 of 2022
Ashwani Kumar Mire S/o Shri Alath Ram Mire, Aged
about 54 years, Working as Teacher (L.B.) Govt.
Middle School, Jhanki, Block Navagarh, Distt.
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary,
Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Indrawati
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Divisional Joint Director (Education), Durg
Division, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4. Collector, Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh.
5. District Education Officer, Bemetara, Distt.
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
6. Block Education Officer, Navagarh, Distt.
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate
For State : Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. A.G. and
Mr. Avinash Singh, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
[Through Video Conferencing]
18/01/2022
1. The petitioner was earlier working as Teacher
(L.B.) and he was placed under suspension by order
dated 08/06/2020 under Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966. Thereafter, he preferred WPS No.
2967/2020 questioning the order of suspension
whereby he was allowed to make representation for
revocation of suspension vide order dated
06/08/2020 passed by this Court. In pursuance
thereof, petitioner moved a representation and
ultimately by order dated 21/09/2021 (Annexure P/1)
passed by respondent No. 3, his suspension has been
revoked, but now he has been posted at Government
Middle School, Kandabani, Block Pandariya, District
Kabirdham and suspension allowance has been
confined for the purpose of pension against which
this writ petition has been preferred by him.
2. Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that while revoking the
order of petitioner's suspension, his place of
posting could not have been changed and since no
departmental action has been taken against him,
therefore, he is entitled to be posted at his
earlier place of posting and further entitled for
full backwages of the suspension period. He would
further submit that petitioner may be allowed to
make a representation so that he may be posted in
District Bemetara where he was earlier working.
3. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate
General, would invite the attention of this Court
in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court in the matter of L.P. Saket v.
Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited1 wherein it has already been held that it
is not a thumb rule that an employee whose
suspension has been revoked has a right to be
posted and continued in the same place of posting
on revocation of suspension, as he only has a lien
on the post and not on the place of posting,
therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be
dismissed, however, if the representation is made
by the petitioner, it will be considered and
decided strictly in accordance with law.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein
above and went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
5. The short question for consideration in this writ
petition would be, whether the Divisional Joint
Director (Education) is justified in transferring
the petitioner to another District after revoking
his suspension ?
6. In order to answer this plea, it would be
appropriate to notice the judgment rendered by this
Court in the matter of L.P. Saket (supra) wherein
the Division Bench formulated the following
question for consideration in paragraph 1 :
"1. Vide order date 27.03.2018, the learned
Single Judge, while dealing with the present
writ petition on the question whether an
employee placed under suspension on charges
of omission and commission for which a
departmental proceeding was initiated and is
still subsisting, has a right to be posted
back to the same place of posting after
revocation of suspension or he can be given
another place of posting."
7. Thereafter, the aforesaid question has been
answered by the Court in paragraphs 12 and 14 of
the judgment, which states as under :
"12. Keeping in mind what the Full Bench of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court has had to say
in the case of Asif Mohd. Khan v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Ors.2 and even with
regard to correctness or otherwise of the
decision rendered in the case of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others. V. Dr. R.K.
Shastri & Another3, we are constrained to
hold that the order passed by a coordinate
Bench of the Single Judge in the cases of
Khadanand Patanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh
2 2015 (4) MPLJ 406
3 2005 (4) MPHT 352
& Others4 and Khelendra Kumar Singh v. State
of Chhattisgarh5 are not good laws. There is
no right of an employee to claim a place of
posting on revocation of suspension as a
matter of right and the competent authority
can very well transfer an employee to yet
another place after revocation of suspension
even otherwise keeping the exigencies of
service into consideration as also that
posting such a person on the same post and
place where a departmental enquiry was still
going on against him, may not be in the
interest of the administration since there
could be every possibility of such an
employee to tamper with the evidence and not
allow a free and fair enquiry to be held. We
may also notice that during period of
suspension, the Head Quarter of an employee
is always fixed away from the place of
posting which has an object and reason. The
same will be defeated if it is held that the
employee has a lien on place also.
14. The question of law for which the
reference was made has been answered in the
preceding paragraphs of this order. To sum,
it cannot be a thumb rule that an employee
whose suspension has been revoked has a
right to be posted and continued in the same
place of posting on revocation of
suspension, as he only has a lien on the
post and not on the place of posting."
8. Thus, it has clearly been held by the Division
Bench of this Court that an employee whose
suspension has been revoked has no legal right to
be posted and continued in the same place of
posting on revocation of suspension, as he only has
a lien on the post and not on the place of posting.
The competent authority has the jurisdiction to
change the place of posting as per administrative
exigency. In that view of the matter, petitioner's
claim that he ought to have been posted at his
earlier place of posting after revocation of
suspension cannot be accepted and is hereby
rejected. However, petitioner is at liberty to make
representation before respondent No. 3 for
redressal of his grievance/posting in District
Bemetara within three weeks from today which will
be considered and decided within further three
weeks from the date of filing of the representation
on its own merits in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of
the petitioner, this writ petition stands disposed
of. No cost(s).
Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 250 of 2022
Petitioner Ashwani Kumar Mire
Versus
Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
(English)
Government servant has no right to be posted
at same place after revocation of his
suspension and his place of posting can be
changed by the competent authority.
(Hindi)
शशसककय ससवक कक उसकस ननललबन कस पनतसलहरण कस पशशतत उसस सथशन पर
पदसथशपनश कश अनधकशर नहह हह तथश सकम पशनधकशरस दशरश उसकस
पदसथशपनश कस सथशन मम पररवतरन ककयश जश सकतश हह |
