BHUWANESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING his so called transfer/change of Headquarters ordered by the competent authority by the impugned orders dated 10.10.2012 and 12.10.2012, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is working as Senior Safety -Cum -Production Assistant in Nowrozabad Colliery, Johilla Area, District Umariya. Records indicate that while petitioner was so working a raid was conducted in his house by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 31.5.2012 and a criminal case has been registered against him on the allegation of possession of income beyond the known source of income. On the basis of the aforesaid act petitioner was suspended vide order Annexure P -1 dated 12.10.2012 and vide order dated 10.10.2012 Annexure P -2 he is transferred/shifted from Johilla Area to Bhatgaon area. Interalia contending that on suspension an employee cannot be transferred in the manner done and further pointing out that petitioner was earlier transferred vide Annexure P -2 on 10.10.2012 to Bhatgaon area and now once he is under suspension he cannot be relieved while on suspension and transferred, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) IT is indicated by Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel that the reasons given for transferring/shifting headquarter of petitioner is not correct because even though before shifting headquarter of petitioner, he is transferred and as the entire action is taken at the instance of authorities of Central Bureau of Investigation the same is unsustainable. By pointing out that petitioner would be adversely effected, if he is transferred, in the matter of defending him in the criminal case lodged by Central Bureau of Investigation and shifting of headquarter is not necessary for effective enquiry, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) SHRI Greeshm Jain submits that an independent decision has been taken by the competent authority, the decision is not influenced by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The CBI has only recommended for change of Headquarter and as the same is considered by the disciplinary authority independently, as is evident from note -sheet page 13 of the return, Shri Greeshm Jain submits that there is no error or illegality in the action of respondents warranting interference into the matter.