DINESH PRASAD SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, Sub -Inspectors of Police, were deputed to the Transport Department from their Parent Home Department. On being deputed, petitioner no. 1 has been working in the Transport Department since December, 2002, whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have been working in the said Department from February, 2004. However, under order dated 20.11.2007 issued by the respondent no.4 -Secretary, Department of Transport, Jharkhand, Ranchi, as contained in Annexure -4, returned the services of the petitioners to the Parent Home Department and previous to that, the Director General of Police vide Memo No. 380 dated 19.2.2007 (Annexure -1) deputed respondent nos. 6 to 8 to the Transport Department and thereupon under office order. No. 25 dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure -5) issued by Secretary, Department of Transport, Jharkhand, Ranchi posted respondent nos. 6 to 8 in the Transport Department as Enforcement Officers in the district of Hazaribagh, Dhanbad and Koderma respectively.

(2.) . Being aggrieved with the said order including the order under which these petitioners were repatriated to the Home Department, they preferred this writ application assailing the said orders on the grounds that the order under which the petitioners' services were repatriated are tainted with mala fide, as the said order has been passed on the recommendation of the Minister, Transport, Jharkhand, Ranchi and that said order is arbitrary, as the persons, who were deputed earlier to the petitioners and working from before, have been left out, whereas the petitioners were chosen for repatriation to the Parent Department only to accommodate respondent nos. 6 to 8 and also on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed against the settled norms and also against the Government policy.

(3.) . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that while eight persons including the petitioners were working in the Transport Department as Enforcement Sub -Inspectors on deputation, respondent nos. 6 to 8 were deputed to the Transport Department under order dated 19.2.2007, though the posts were not vacant and as such they could not take charge and in order to get over this difficulty, the petitioners were chosen for repatriation to the Parent Department at the instance of Minister to accommodate those respondents though certain other persons were working on deputation from before, which would be evident from the documents annexed with this writ application and as such the impugned orders are not only tainted with mala fide but it also smacks arbitrariness.