Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11983 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Civil Misc. (Recall/Restoration) Application No. 2 of 2018 Learned Standing Counsel admits that the information supplied by him was incorrect as there was some confusion and, therefore, a statement was made in the Court that the present writ petition has become infructuous.
In view of the said statement, the recall/restoration application is allowed.
The order dated 21.5.2018 dismissing the writ petition as infructuous is hereby recalled.
The writ petition is restored to its original number.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the transfer order dated 13.4.2018 with the assertion that the petitioner cannot be transferred from Gorakhpur during the subsistence of the suspension order.
Submission is that while working on the post of constable in U.P. Vigilance Establishment in Gorakhpur, levelling the allegations of receipt of illegal gratification against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 15th September, 2017.
The record further indicates that during the period of suspension, the petitioner was attached to the Vigilance Establishment of the Varanasi Sector by the order dated 27th October, 2017. Initially, he was attached with the Vigilance Department, Head Office, Lucknow.
It appears that vide impugned order dated 13.4.2018, the petitioner has been transferred from the Vigilance Establishment, Gorakhpur to the Civil Police, Lucknow which is his parent department.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Sadhna Gupta, S.I. vs. State of U.P. & 2 others (Writ-A No. 36187 of 2013) to submit that the petitioner cannot be transferred from Vigilance Establishment to Civil Police during the period of suspension.
It is admitted by the petitioner that his parent department is Civil Police, he was placed on deputation in the Vigilance Establishment. By the transfer order dated 13.4.2018, the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department. Merely on the ground that the said order was passed during the period of suspension, no interference is required in the transfer order.
Even otherwise, the posting of the petitioner in the Vigilance Establishment was only an interim arrangement.
For the above noted reason, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order of posting of the petitioner. The reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sadhna Gupta, S.I. (supra) is of no benefit to him.
Insofar as the grievance of the petitioner for non-payment of subsistence allowances is concerned, it is open for him to make a representation before the competent authority who shall do the needful at the earliest.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Brijesh