N.R. KUSHWAHA Vs. VIRENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was holding the post of Child Development Project Officer and was placed under suspension. The Director,. Bal Vikas Sewa Avam Pustahar, by order dated 11 -10 -1990 reinstated the applicant and posted him to Gorakhpur Division. Prior to his suspension the applicant was working in Agra Division. The applicant did not join at Gorakhpur but, joined at Jalesar, Etah, after the reinstatement order was passed on 11 -10 -1990. On the request made by the applicant the Commissioner, Agra Division, transferred him from Jalesar (Etah) to Khandauli (Agra) by his order dated 30 -3 -1991. Subsequently the Commissioner, Agra Division, passed another order on 3 -5 -1991 cancelling the aforesaid transfer order on the ground that by G.O. dated 18th February, 1991, issued by the State Government the power of transfer from one district to another district had been taken away from the Commissioner and had been vested with the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, Lucknow. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order dated 3rd May, 1991, passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, by which he had cancelled his earlier transfer order dated 30 -3 -1991. In the writ petition the learned Standing Counsel was granted time to file counter -affidavit and an interim order was passed staying the operation of the order dated 3rd May, 1991, passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division and the Writ Petition was ordered to be listed for admission after the expiry of the time granted for filing counter and rejoinder -affidavits. It appears that subsequently the Director Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, Lucknow, passed an order on 27th June, 1991, placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are contemplated to be drawn against him. It has also been mentioned in the suspension order that although while reinstating in service he was posted to Gorakhpur Division but he did not report for duty there, but reported in Agra Division and further by misleading the Commissioner, Agra Division, he obtained a transfer order transferring him from Jalesur (Etah) to Khandauli (Agra) although he was not posted at Jalesar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by passing the suspension order dated 27th June, 1991, the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, Lucknow, and other officers have committed contempt of the order dated 16th May, 1991, passed by this court. In my opinion the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived. By the stay order dated 16th May, 1991, this court merely stayed the operation of the cancellation order passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, on 3rd May, 1991, by which the transfer of the petitioner from Jalesar (Etah) to Khandauli (Agra) had been cancelled. The suspension order has been passed on entirely different grounds, the main grounds being that the petitioner did not report for duty at Gorakhpur Division after he had been reinstated by the Director and the other ground is that he obtained his transfer order from the Commissioner, Agra Division, by misrepresentation of facts. The principal ground for suspension appears to be non -compliance of the order passed by the Director, namely, that the petitioner did not report for duty at Gorakhpur Division. Thus by placing the petitioner under suspension, no violation of the stay order has been committed.

(2.) IT was next contended that the respondents did not permit the applicant to join as Child Development Project Officer, Khandauli, even after the stay order dated 16 -5 -1991 had communicated. In support of this submission learned counsel placed reliance on an order dated 5th July, 1991 passed by the District Programme Officer, Bal Vikas, Agra, by which it was directed that certain work of distribution will be done by the applicant with regard to Bal Vikas Karyalaya; Khandauly. In my opinion this is merely an administrative order passed after the petitioner had been placed under suspension regarding allocation or distribution of official work of a particular nature. It does not show that the applicant was not permitted to join duty.