VIVEK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was transferred by an order dated 27-2-1999 which was challenged in writ petition No. 9190 of 1991. By an order dated 12-3-1999 the operation of the order dated 27-2-1999 was stayed and the respondents were directed to continue to pay the salary to the petitioner regularly. The petitioner has been suspended by an order dated 17 -3-1999 on the ground that the petitioner did not join the transferred post in contemplation of an enquiry. The said order is Annexure 13 to the writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said order is antedated. According to him the petitioner had been in the office on 20 -3-1999 but the respondents did not receive copy of the interim order, on the other hand, impugned order has been passed with an ante date. The petitioner ultimately had produced copy of the interim order before the Managing Director on 10-4-1999. The Managing Director by his order dated 19-4-1991, contained in Annexure-18 to the writ petition, has communicated has decision. In the said decision it was mentioned that the order of suspension was issued on 17-3-1999 before the interim order dated 12-3-1999 was communicated. Therefore, the interim order has become inoperative. On the other hand, the charge sheet would be issued and the petitioner has been directed to submit his reply for consideration of the Managing Director.

(3.) Shri V.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 State has justified the situation and the stand taken by the respondents.