Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 360 (UTT)

Rajeev Mohan Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-11-01

S.K.MISHRA, VIPIN SANGHI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner since he was aggrieved by the transfer of Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 07.01.2022 to Government Veterinary Hospital, Subhash Nagar, Dehradun on the post held by him. The case of the petitioner is that his young daughter died in her college premises. After investigation, a case under Section 306 IPC was registered. The petitioner has narrated that two Special Investigation Teams were constituted to carry out the investigation. Thereafter, the case was also handed over to the CBI. The issue whether it is a case under Section 306 IPC, or 302 IPC involving other students and administration of the college is still pending consideration. The petitioner has narrated that two Special Investigation Teams were constituted to carry out the investigation. Thereafter, the case was also handed over to the CBI. The issue whether it is a case under Section 306 IPC, or 302 IPC involving other students and administration of the college is still pending consideration. With a view to enable the petitioner to pursue the case, the respondent/administration had initially passed an order on 24.11.2020, which reads as follows : ^^mRrjk[k.M 'kklu i'kqikyu vuqHkkx&01 la[;k& 1352/XV-1/20-2(6)/2010 Vhålhå&01 nsgjknwu fnukad 24 uoEcj 2020 dk;kZy;&Kki i'kqikyu vuqHkkx&01 mRrjk[k.M 'kklu ds dk;kZy;&Kki la0& 1131/XV-1/20-2(6)/2010 Vhålhå fn0 9 vDVwcj 2020 esa mfyf[kr rkfydk ds Øekad&5 ij vafdr MkW0 jktho eksgu 'kekZ Ik'kqfpfdRlkf/kdkjh xszM&1 rSukrh @ inLFkkiuk jktdh; Ik'kqfpfdRlky; m[kheB] tuin& :nziz;kx esa dh xbZ Fkh rFkk dk;kZy;&Kki la0 & 1303/XV-1/20-2(6)/2010 Vhålhå fn0 17 vDVwcj] 2020 ds )kjk MkW0 jktho eksgu 'kekZ] Ik'kqfpfdRlkf/kdkjh & xszM&01 jktdh; Ik'kqfpfdRlky; m[kheB tuin& :nziz;kx dks mudh iq=h dh gR;k ds laca/k esa ACJMI-II/ Lis'ky eftLVsªV lh-ch-vkbZ dksVZ nsgjknwu esa izpfyr dsl esa Lo;a }kjk iSjoh djus laca/kh vfrfof'k"V ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vxr 'kklu ds vfxze vkns'ksa vFkok dsl Vªk;y ds lekIr gksus@dksVZ ds gksus rd dh vof/k] tks Hkh igys gks rd ds fy, jktdh; Ik'kqfpfdRlky; m[kheB tuin& :nziz;kx ds inh; nkf;Roksa ds lkFk&lkFk jktdh; Ik'kqfpfdRlky; lqHkk"kuxj tuin nsgjknwu dk vfrfjDr izHkkj iznku x;k FkkA mijksDr ds Øe esa MkW0 jktho eksgu 'kekZ Ik'kqfpfdRlkf/kdkjh xszM&1 dh of.kZr vfrfof'k"V ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vxr Le;d fopkjksijkUr mDr dk;kZy;&Kki fnukad 09 vDVwcj] 2020 esa vkaf'kr la'kks/ku djrs gq, dk;kZy;&Kki fnukad 17-11-2020 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa MkW0 jktho eksgu 'kekZ] Ik'kqfpfdRlkf/kdkjh xszM&1 dh inLFkkiuk@rSukrh@lEc}hdj.k fuEu rkfydk ds vuqlkj dh tkrh gSA Ø- la- Ik'kqfpfdRlkf/kdkjh dk uke@inuke iwoZ rSukrh LFkku uohu rSukrh LFkku@lEc}hdj.k 1- MkW0 jktho eksgu 'kekZ] Ik'kqfpfdRlkf/kdkjh xszM&1 Ik'kqfpfdRlky;] Å[kheB] tuin & :nziz;kx Ik'kqfpfdRlky;] ukSxkao] tuin & mRRkjdk'kh lEc} & Ik'kqfpfdRlky;] lqHkk"kuxj] nsgjknwuA mDr lec}hdj.k MkW0 jktho eksgu 'kekZ dh vifjgk;Z@fof'k"V ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vxr fd;k tk jgk gS] ftls vU; izdj.kksa gsrq n`"Vkar u le>k tk;sA lEc}hdj.k vof/k esa MkW0 jktho eksgu 'kekZ] Ik'kqfpfdRlkf/kdkjh xzsM & 01 dk osru muds ewy rSukrh ds LFkku Ik'kqfpfdRlky;] ukSxkao] tuin& mRrjdk'kh ds in ds lkis{k vkgfjr fd;k tk;sxkA dk;kZy;&Kki & 1131/XV-I/20-2(6)/2010 Vhålhå fn0 09 vDVwcj 2020 dks mDr lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>k tk;s rFkk mDr ds vU; izkfo/kku ;Fkkor cus jgsaxsA ;g vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksxkA ¼vkj0 ehuk{kh lqUnje½ lfpoA la[;k % 1352/XV-I/20-2(5)/2010 Vh0lh0&1] rn~fnukafdrA izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr& 1- futh] lfpo & ek0 Ik'kqikyu ea=h dks ek0 ea=h th ds laKkukFkZA 2- funs'kd] Ik'kqikyu foHkkx] mRrjk[k.MA 3- vij funs'kd] Ik'kqikyu foHkkx] xढ+oky e.My] ikSM+hA 4- lacaf/kr eq[; Ik'kqfpfdRlkf/kdkjhA 5- lacaf/kr Ik'kqfpfdRlkf/kdkjhA 6- xkMZ QkbZyA vkKk ls] ¼vkj0 ehuk{kh lqUnje½ lfpoA** 2. The petitioner is aggrieved since respondent no. 4 was transferred vide order dated 07.01.2022, and he was instructed to occupy the post on which the petitioner was attached at Government Veterinary Hospital, Subhash Nagar, Dehradun. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent, however, did not terminate his attachment on the said post. The petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition, wherein on 28.03.2022, this Court directed maintenance of status quo, qua posting of the petitioner. The effect and operation of the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 was stayed by this Court on 04.04.2022. That position continues till date. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/State that since the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue to remain attach to the same post indefinitely, the respondent/State has revoked the attachment of the petitioner vide order dated 9th May, 2022. However, the said order is not given effect to in the light of the order passed by this Court. 4. We have heard the learned counsels, including learned counsel for respondent no.4. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is pursuing a case relating to death of his young daughter, we permit the State to post the petitioner on any other similar post within District Dehradun. Any such order that may be issued, would be given effect to after two months from today. The writ petition stands disposed of with such observations.