Quashed

Unnati Goyal v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jul 2024CWP/1089/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a transfer order of a doctor from Civil Hospital Kandaghat to Community Health Centre Takleh. The order was challenged as punitive. The Court held that since an inquiry had been initiated based on complaints of misbehavior, the transfer could not be sustained as punishment without a concluded inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The transfer order dated 13.02.2024 dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and set aside; the petition is disposed of.

Unnati Goyal Vs State of Hp and Another — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:4381

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 1089 of 2024 Decided on: 02.07.2024
Dr. Unnati Goyal … Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes

¶6

______________________ For the petitioner	_____ :	_____________________ Mr. Tarun K. Shar	____ _ ma, Advocate.
For the respondents	:	Mr.Anup Rattan,	Advocate General,
		with Mr. Rahul Advocate General.	Thakur, Deputy

¶7

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶8

By way of this Writ petition, the petitioner has challenged transfer order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-2), in terms whereof, the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from Civil Hospital Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. to Community Health Centre Takleh, District Shimla, H.P.

¶9

The stand of the respondents was that the transfer of the petitioner was a result of certain complaints received against her that she was harassing other Doctors and the staff and was misbehaving with the patients.

¶10

In the backdrop of said stand of the State, on 20.05.2025, this Court has passed the following order:-

¶11

“ Heard for sometime. This Court fails to understand that if there is merit in the complaint that has been filed against the petitioner then why the Department has not conducted any inquiry in this regard. Though, transfer cannot be used as a tool to punish the employee, as has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner but

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

fact of the matter still remains that in case, there are allegations against the petitioner, as is evident from the documents appended with the reply then same can also not be allowed to remain unattended by the

¶15

Court. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that he may be granted sometime to have instructions. As prayed for, list before the appropriate Bench after three weeks.

¶16

Interim order to continue. ”

¶17

Today, learned Deputy Advocate General has intimated

¶18

the Court that appropriate inquiry now stands initiated against the petitioner.

¶19

Be that as it may, fact of the matter still remains that the impugned transfer order was a result of the alleged complaints filed against the petitioner. It had now resulted in the initiation of inquiry against the petitioner. It has not been pleaded before the Court by the respondents that after the stay was granted to the petitioner by this Court and after the inquiry stood initiated against her, she has in any manner created any impediment in the course of a fair inquiry or that she has again indulged in the acts of alleged misbehaviour with the staff or the patients.

¶20

It is settled law that transfer cannot be used as a tool to punish an employee. Whether or not, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are worth any merit, will depend upon the outcome of the inquiry, but on the basis of said facts, the petitioner cannot be prejudged by transferring her to some other place.

¶21

Therefore, this petition succeeds and the impugned

¶22

¶23

transfer order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and set aside on the ground that transfer on the basis of complaint, allegations made in which still were to be proved, cannot be sustained in law. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶25

July 02, 2024 (Rishi)

Unnati Goyal v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnati Goyal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwant Kaur Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Ashwani Kumar

Raveena Bibi and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Hari Ram and Ors.

Hem Raj Vs Hrtc and Another

Shiv Chand Vs State of Hp