Partly allowed

Shri Kamleshwar Toppo v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 May 2017WPS/2208/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the portion of an impugned departmental order that posted a suspended teacher to a new location upon reinstatement. Relying on the principle that a suspended employee retains lien over their post, the court held that revocation of suspension requires reinstatement at the original place or the fixed headquarter, and the authority limited its power to rule on transfer.

What did the court decide?

The order posting the petitioner to Government Middle School, Bedekona, Block Bagicha was quashed. The respondents can pass a fresh order regarding posting.

Shri Kamleshwar Toppo Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 2208 of 2017

¶5

Shri Kamleshwar Toppo S/o Late Shri P. Emil Toppo, Aged About 43 Years R/o Beside F.C.I. Godown, Cheer Bagicha, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) Pin 496331

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Commissioner, Tribal Development, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

District Education OfÏcer, School Education Department, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

Block Education OfÏcer, School Education Department, Block Manora, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. R. Tripathi, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

10/5/2017

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

Petitioner has assailed the said part of the impugned order whereby, while revoking his suspension and reinstating him, he has been posted at a place different than the one where

¶20

¶21

he was posted at the time of passing the order of suspension.

¶22

The petitioner, who is working as Upper Division Teacher in the ofÏce of the Block Resource Coordinator Center, Block Manora, District Jashpur was suspended on 15.1.2015. At that time his headquarter during suspension period was fixed at the ofÏce of Block Education OfÏcer, Jashpur.

¶23

Subsequently, a departmental enquiry was constituted and, after giving strict warning, the District Education OfÏcer, District Jashpur, by the impugned order dated 24.3.2017 has revoked the order of suspension, however, the petitioner has now been posted in the Government Middle School, Bedekona, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when an employee is suspended from a particular place of posting he retains the lien on the said post, therefore, on revocation of order of suspension the employee is required to be posted at the same place.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State would submit that even if the lien is maintained at the same place, the competent authority is entitled to transfer and post the petitioner at any other place, depending upon the administrative exigency, therefore, there is no illegality.

¶26

The issue fallen for consideration has been decided by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in

¶27

¶28

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others v. Dr. R.K.

¶29

Shahstri and another¹ , wherein the following has been held :

¶30

The order dated 6/8-7-2002 is not passed by the authority who passed the order of suspension, but by the Appellate Authority in exercise of appellate power, while dealing with an appeal filed by the employee. While exercising the appellate power under Rule 23 read with Rule 27 (1), the Appellate Authority can either confirm the suspension or revoke the suspension. Therefore the second respondent while passing the order dated 6/872002, could not have transferred the employee or make the revocation of suspension subject to the employee reporting at the place of transfer. The order of the Appellate Authority to the extent it subjects the revocation of suspension conditional to reporting to duty at K.V., Karimganj is therefore illegal and inoperative.

¶31

It is well settled that when an employee is kept under suspension pending enquiry, he retains his lien over the post from which he is suspended. It is also a settled position that the station of posting immediately before suspension would be the headquarter vis-a-vis the suspended employee, unless the Competent Authority changes the headquarter of the suspended employee in public interest. It is also well settled that any vacanycy caused on account of suspension pending enquiry, is to be flled by a reservist and where a reservisti is not available by ofciating appointment.Ï Therefore on revocation of suspension, the employee becomes entitled to report back to his place of posting from where he was suspended. Once he reports back to duty, the employer may, in exercise of power of transfer, transfer him. Therefore, we agree with the fnding of the Tribunal that the order of thei Appellate Authority dated 6/8-7-2002 to the extent it posts the frst respondent toi Karimganj and makes the revocation of suspension effective from the date of reporting at K.V., Karimganj, is invalid and liable to be quashed.

¶32

Emphasis supplied

¶33

1 2005 (4) MPHT 352 (DB)

¶34

¶35

In the case at hand, on the date of suspension the petitioner was posted in the ofÏce of Block Resource Coordinator Center, Block Manora, District Jashpur and his headquarter during the period of suspension was fixed at the ofÏce of Block Education OfÏcer, Jashpur, however, while revoking the suspension order, he has been assigned the new place of posting, which is other than the place of original posting or his headquarter during the period of suspension.

¶36

In view of the observation made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Dr. R.K. Shahstri (supra), such recourse is not available to the authority who has revoked the suspension.

¶37

10.Accordingly, such part of the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been posted in Government Middle School, Bedekona, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, is quashed. However, the respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh order with regard to petitioner's posting depending upon the administrative exigency.

¶38

11.As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Sd/-

¶39

Judge

¶40

(Prashant Kumar Mishra)

¶41

Shyna

Shri Kamleshwar Toppo v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kamleshwar Toppo v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.D. Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

G.C. Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sajeewan Ram Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Pradeep Tigga Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Daras Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Puniram Chouhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh