Quashed

Manmohan Singh v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jul 2023CWP/2143/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an office order transferring the petitioner from one school to another solely due to complaints, relying on a prior precedent that transfer cannot substitute for a penalty inquiry, while reserving the right to conduct a proper inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Office Order dated 13.4.2023 transferring the petitioner was quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to work at the present station of posting. The respondent is permitted to h

Manmohan Singh Vs State of Hp and Another — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2143 of 2023 Decided on: 05.07.2023

¶2

Manmohan Singh .....Petitioner.

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of H.P. & anr.

¶5

.....Respondents.

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Thakur and Ms. Meena Devi, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶9

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶10

Aggrieved by the order of transfer, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition, seeking the following substantive relief:

¶11

“i) That the impugned Office Order at Annexure P-1, dated 13.4.2023, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from GSSS Kolar, District Sirmour to GSSS

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶13

¶14

Ghaintee in District Solan may kindly be quashed and set aside, and the petitioner may kindly be permitted to work at the present station of posting in the interest of justice.”

¶15

A perusal of the record, that has been produced by the respondents, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, would go to indicate that the petitioner has been transferred solely on the ground of there being complaints against him. This Court in CWP No. 8590 of 20214, titled as Raj Kumar versus State of H.P. & Ors ., decided on 31.12.2014 (reported in 2015(1) Him. L.R. (DB) 567) has clearly held that the transfer cannot be a substitute for holding an inquiry by way of penalty.

¶16

Consequently, the impugned order of transfer dated 13.4.2023 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that this order shall not debar the respondents from holding an inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with rules.

¶17

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶18

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge

¶19

( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge

¶20

July 05, 2023 ( vs)

Manmohan Singh v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan Singh v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishi Pal Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Uma Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Sher Singh Vs State of Hp and Another

Raj Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

M/S Nugenic Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Bank and Others

Lata Sharma Vs State of Hp