Himachal Pradesh High Court
Poonam Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 27 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.8776 of 2025
Date of decision: 27.05.2025
Poonam Sharma. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.
For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy
Advocate General, for
respondents-State.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Petitioner is Class-I officer serving as Executive
Engineer (Electrical) in the respondent-Public Works
Department at Electrical Division Mandi. Her grievance is to
notification dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereunder
she has been transferred to the office of Superintending
Engineer (Electrical) HPPWD Electrical Circle, Dharamshala
vice respondent No.4 as also to the office order dated
24.05.2025 (Annexure P-6) rejecting her representation
against the impugned transfer.
2. Projected facts.
2(i). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was transferred to the present place of posting, i.e.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Electrical Division, Mandi, on 21.10.2023. She has not
completed her normal tenure at the present place, therefore,
the impugned order transferring the petitioner from the
present place without letting her complete her normal
tenure, contravenes the transfer policy.
2(ii). Learned counsel next submits that petitioner is
single parent of a specially abled daughter aged about 24
years, who suffers from 80% locomotor and mental
retardation disability.
2(iii). Feeling aggrieved against the impugned
notification dated 07.05.2025, the petitioner had preferred
CWP No.7845 of 2025. The said writ petition was decided on
13.05.2025, reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a
representation to the respondents seeking cancellation of her
transfer on account of adverse family circumstances.
Respondents were directed to decide the aforesaid
representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and taking due note of the fact that petitioner
is a single mother and her daughter is 80% disabled being
taken care of by the petitioner. Petitioner, thereafter,
preferred representation to the respondents which was
decided on 24.05.2025. The respondents under this order
rejected the petitioner's representation.
2(iv). Apart from questioning her transfer under order
dated 07.05.2025, petitioner has also laid challenge to the
order dated 24.05.2025 under which her representation has
been rejected.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and considered the case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged following
grounds for assailing the impugned order:-
3(i). Petitioner has completed only one year and six
months at present place. She should have been allowed to
complete normal stay of 3 years at this place.
3(ii). Petitioner is mother of a specially abled girl,
therefore, she could not have been transferred under the
impugned order.
3(iii). It was contended that allegations levelled against
the petitioner in the charge memo issued to her under Rule
14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) [in short 'CCS (CCA)'] Rules, 1965, are all incorrect.
Petitioner has already filed reply to the charge-sheet.
3(iv). Learned counsel placed reliance upon Shalini
Dharmani vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.1,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborated the
provisions of Child Care Leave to women as subservient to
constitutional object of ensuring that women are not
deprived of their due participation as members of the work
force. Such consideration is to apply in case of mother who
has child with special needs. Policies of the State have to be
consistent and must synchronize with constitutional
protection and safeguards. Relevant para of the judgment is
as under :-
"7. The participation of women in the work force is not a
matter of privilege, but a constitutional entitlement
protected by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution;
besides Article 19(1)(g). The State as a model employer
cannot be oblivious to the special concerns which arise
in the case of women who are part of the work force.
The provision of Child Care Leave to women subserves
the significant constitutional object of ensuring that
women are not deprived of their due participation as
members of the work force. Otherwise, in the absence
of a provision for the grant of Child Care Leave, a
mother may well be constrained to leave the work
force. This consideration applies a fortiori in the case of
a mother who has a child with special needs. Such a
case is exemplified in the case of the petitioner herself.
We are conscious of the fact that the petition does
trench on certain aspects of policy. Equally, the policies
of the State have to be consistent and must be
synchronise with constitutional protections and
safeguards."
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16864 of 2021 decided on 22.04.2024.
4. Consideration.
As per the impugned order passed by the
respondents on 24.05.2025 rejecting petitioner's
representation, following incumbency position of the
petitioner has been drawn, which has not been disputed by
the petitioner:-
"Name of Officer/ Incumbency
D.O.B/Home District
Mrs. Poonam Sharma/ Date of appointment as JE: 19.12.1997
14-3-1971/ Mandi 19.12.1997 to 28.01.1998: Elect Div Mandi
29.01.1998 to 21.04.2000: Elect S/D Kullu
22.04.2000 to 10.09.2000: Elect S/D Udaipur
11.09.2000 to 10.09.2013: Elect S/D Kullu
(Holding charge of AE)
11-9-2013 to 30.07.2014: Elect. S/D Kullu
Promoted as AE on Regular basis on 31.07.2014
31.07.2014 to 20.10.2023: AE S/D Kullu
Promoted as EE on regular basis: 21.10.2023
21.10.2023 to 07.05.2025 EE Elect Div Mandi
07.05.2025: EE(D) HPPWD Elect Circle
Dharamshala (but not joined as yet)"
The above tabulated incumbency makes it
apparent that the petitioner has been accommodated by the
respondents either at Electrical Sub-Division, Kullu or
Electrical Sub-Division, Mandi during her 28-years service
career. But for a short stint of about 4½ months at Udaipur,
she has not served at any other place. It can, therefore, be
deduced that the respondents have accommodated the
petitioner in the past in view of her being the single parent of
a specially abled daughter. The respondents have given
following justification in order dated 24.05.2025 for not
accepting petitioner's representation against her impugned
transfer from Mandi to Dharamshala:-
"7. WHEREAS, Smt. Poonam Sharma, Executive
Engineer (Electrical) in her representation has also
stated that her daughter is a specially abled child
who is 80% permanently disabled but the applicant
has been posted at Dharamshala, where all medical
facilities which may be required by her disabled child
are readily available;
8. WHEREAS, the DG State Vigilance & Anti
Corruption Bureau H.P. vide letter dated 23.01.2025
has forwarded a complaint against Smt. Poonam
Sharma, Executive Engineer (Electrical) with regard to
misuse of power while issuing tenders for copper-
wound, oil-cooled distribution transformers in respect
of SLBS Medical College, Nerchowk and upon enquiry
through duly constituted Committee under the
chairmanship of the Superintending Engineer, 1st
Electrical Circle, HPPWD Shimla, it was found that
Smt. Poonam Sharma, EE (Elect.) HPPWD Electrical
Division Mandi has changed the eligibility criteria in
Tender document without the approval of the
competent authority and fixed the voltage level of
similar work 3 times the proposed level of 11 KV, thus
she violated the condition of 80% capacity in terms of
KVA as well as KV ratings, therefore, she has failed
to act as per the guidelines of CPWD manual, CVC
guidelines and directions of higher officer & misused
powers. The disciplinary proceedings against her
under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have been
initiated on 21.04.2025 to enquire into the alleged
charges and thus her transfer from HPPWD Electrical
Division Mandi to some other station was
necessitated to ensure free & fair enquiry;"
The above extract from the impugned order dated
24.05.2025 indicates that:-
(i). The Director General, State Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption Bureau, H.P. had forwarded a
complaint on 23.01.2025 against the petitioner
with regard to misuse of power while issuing
tenders for copper-wound, oil-cooled distribution
transformers in respect of SLBS Medical College,
Nerchowk.
(ii). Upon enquiry through duly constituted
Committee, it was found that the petitioner had
changed the eligibility criteria in the tender
document without the approval of the competent
authority and fixed the voltage level of similar
work 3 times the proposed level of 11 KV, thus
she violated the condition of 80% capacity in
terms of KVA as well as KV ratings.
(iii). Petitioner failed to act as per the guidelines of
CPWD manual, CVC guidelines and directions of
higher officers & misused her powers.
(iv). The disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against her under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 on 21.04.2025.
For the above reasons, necessity was felt by the
competent authority to transfer the petitioner from Mandi
and accordingly, she was transferred from Mandi to
Dharamshala on 07.05.2025.
Petitioner has been accommodated by the
respondents in past about 28 years either in District Kullu or
in District Mandi in view of her being single parent of
specially abled daughter, but in view of disciplinary
proceedings initiated against her under Rule 14 of the
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for imposition of major penalty, the
respondent-employer has ordered her transfer from Mandi to
Dharamshala to ensure free and fair inquiry.
The transfer policy contains Clause 5.6 regarding
concession to employees having differently abled dependents,
however, the said concession is subject to the administrative
constraints. Clause 5.6 as inserted vide office memorandum
dated 17.09.2015 to transfer policy reads as under:-
"Sub-para 5.6: Concession to officials having
differently abled dependents: The Government
employee who has disabled child may be exempted
from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational
transfer subject to the administrative constraints, as
far as possible."
It needs to be mentioned here that to a specific
query of the Court as to whether the petitioner is willing to
be transferred to any place of her choice other than Electrical
Division, Mandi, learned counsel for the petitioner promptly
answered in the negative, stating that the petitioner wants to
continue at Electrical Division, Mandi only.
5. The Court is not oblivious to special concerns of
the petitioner being mother of a specially abled daughter.
Considering petitioner's incumbency position, the
respondents-the employer also cannot be termed as
insensitive to her cause. Petitioner, a Class-I officer, has
been allowed to remain posted either in District Kullu or
Mandi through her service span of 28 years. Presently, the
petitioner has been transferred by the employer on
07.05.2025 in view of disciplinary proceedings initiated
against her on 21.04.2025 for imposition of major penalty. In
such circumstances, the impugned transfer cannot be said
to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or an abuse of the
employer's discretion, warranting any interference by this
Court. Petitioner's transfer from District Mandi is in
administrative exigency, an administrative constraint of
employer to ensure free and fair inquiry into the disciplinary
proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has declined
to provide name of any other station where petitioner can be
transferred and accommodated as per her choice. For all the
above reasons, instant petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to
also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
27th May, 2025 Judge
(Pardeep)
