Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 775 (MP)

Jagdish Shakyawal v. State of M. P.

2020-08-06

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, VIVEK RUSIA

body2020
ORDER 1. The appellant is aggrieved with the order of learned Single Judge dated 27.6.2020 whereby WP No.8717/2020 has been dismissed. 2 The appellant had filed the petition before the learned Single Judge with the plea that he was transferred by the order dated 7.12020 from Dewas to Shajapur but he was not relieved in pursuance to the said transfer order. The prayer in the writ petition was to issue a direction to the respondents to relieve the petitioner for joining at Shajapur in pursuance to the order of transfer. 3 Learned Single Judge after taking note of the fact that the appellant is under suspension and against him FIR has been registered in respect of embezzlement/misappropriation of Government fund to the tune of Rupees Two Crore and the suspension has not been revoked till now and his name was erroneously included in the transfer list, has reached to the conclusion that no question of issuing any direction to permit relieving of the petitioner in pursuance to the transfer order arises. Accordingly, admission has been declined. 4 Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant was placed under suspension in the year 2017, therefore, he cannot be treated to be under suspension for such a long time. He also submits that the order of transfer was issued in pursuance to the recommendation made by the respondent No.4 vide communication dated 7.8.2019 Annexure P/2 enclosed with the writ petition. 5 Learned counsel for State has pointed out that the transfer order in respect of the petitioner was erroneously issued, therefore, subsequently on 2.7.2020 direction has been issued not to relieve the petitioner and the petitioner is already under suspension. 6 Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the suspension of the petitioner has not been revoked till now. No statutory provision relating to automatic revocation of suspension on certain eventualities has been pointed out. Counsel for appellant during the course of arguments has admitted that in the year 2019, the charge sheet has been served upon the appellant and the departmental enquiry is pending. Since the appellant is a suspended employee, therefore, his name could not have been included in the general transfer list issued by the Directorate of Panchayat. Counsel for appellant during the course of arguments has admitted that in the year 2019, the charge sheet has been served upon the appellant and the departmental enquiry is pending. Since the appellant is a suspended employee, therefore, his name could not have been included in the general transfer list issued by the Directorate of Panchayat. The reliance of counsel for appellant on the communication dated 7.8.2019 is misplaced because by the said communication no recommendation for transfer was made but only certain information was forwarded to the Director by respondent No.4. Since the name of the appellant was erroneously included in the order of transfer, therefore, he has not been relieved. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the order under challenge and dismissing the writ petition. 7 Hence, we do not find any error in the order of learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.