I. P. SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the relieving order dtd. 9/12/2021 pursuant to the order of transfer dtd. 9/11/2021.

(2.) The present petition is the second round of litigation. The earlier round of litigation was WPS No. 6735 of 2021, whereby the petitioner substantively had challenged the order of transfer dtd. 9/11/2021 transferring the petitioner from Raipur to Jagdalpur. The said writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make representation within two weeks to the respondents and for the next three weeks the order of transfer was not to be given effect. Pursuant to the order of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition No. 6735 of 2021 decided on 7/12/2021, the petitioner first gave an intimation to the respondents in respect of the interim order granted by this Court on 15/12/2021. Subsequently, he made a representation in terms of the order of this Court dtd. 7/12/2021 on 17/12/2021. Meanwhile, the respondents have passed the order of relieving on 9/12/2021 which was communicated to the petitioner on 20/12/2021 at fore noon session. According to the petitioner, this is an antidated document. Pursuant to the non-compliance of the order, the petitioner has already filed a Contempt Petition before this Court i.e. Contempt Case No. 78 of 2022. Notices have already been issued to the respondents in the said contempt petition. The petitioner received the relieving order on 20/1/2022, yet the present writ petition has been filed after more than two months i.e. on 22/3/2022.

(3.) On a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was not in a position to inform to the Court as to how long the petitioner has been posted at Raipur but he accepts that it is more than 2-3 years in any case. According to the petitioner once when the impugned order dtd. 7/12/2021 was in operation, the respondents could not have issued the relieving order and should have laid their hands off, till the representation of the petitioner is decided. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the representation also till date has not been decided and therefore, the order of the relieving should be stayed at least till the representation is decided. The other contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 has been accommodated at Raipur at his own request. That in order to accommodate the respondent No. 5, the petitioner has been transferred from Raipur to the place where the respondent No. 5 has come. Petitioner also has questioned the competency of the authority who has issued the relieving order and submits that the respondent No. 4 also is a person who already stands transferred and is also relieved and therefore, he could not have discharged his duties in the course of issuance of the relieving order.