Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3351 (ALL)

Arimardan Singh Rajpoot v. State of U. P.

2015-10-27

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT The petition which has been instituted as a PIL is by a member of the Bar who complains of the activities of the third respondent who is presently posted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) in district Mahoba. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the third respondent was convicted for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1986 by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Bareilly on 14 July 2011 and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Moreover, it has been averred that the third respondent was released on bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No 4134 of 2011. The third respondent was suspended on 4 November 2011 but it has been stated that he was subsequently reinstated on 15 May 2013 subject to the condition that he will not be posted in any sensitive posting, and that his arrears of salary will not be paid until the decision of the criminal appeal. The grievance is that despite this, the third respondent was posted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) and by using his authority as Disbursement Officer, he has withdrawn his salary of Rs 11,45,679/- on 17 December 2013. Besides, it has been alleged that the third respondent has opened a private office at his residence and is operating through seven touts who are named in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. 2. At the outset, we must note that matters relating to transfer and posting of the officers of the State cannot be the subject matter of a PIL. We are, therefore, making it abundantly clear that we are not inclined to entertain the grievance in regard to the issue which relates to the service conditions of an officer of the State. However, the allegations which have been made in the paragraphs of the writ petition and which have been adverted to above should, in our view, merit an appropriate scrutiny by the Principal Secretary (Transport) who is impleaded as the first respondent to these proceedings. Hence, without expressing any final or conclusive view particularly in the absence of the third respondent, we direct that the first respondent shall look into the grievance which has been raised in the petition and take an appropriate decision at the administrative level in accordance with law. 3. Hence, without expressing any final or conclusive view particularly in the absence of the third respondent, we direct that the first respondent shall look into the grievance which has been raised in the petition and take an appropriate decision at the administrative level in accordance with law. 3. It is needless to add that this order shall not be construed as expression of any adverse finding on the third respondent since we have directed the first respondent to look into all aspects before arriving at a final conclusion. 4. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.