Shyam Lal Sharma vs State of Raj. and Others

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.

Both these writ petitions are being decided by this common order as they involve common facts and law.

It appears from the facts of the case in writ petition No. 10059/2009 that there was some agitation in Umed Hospital, Jodhpur and the allegation against the petitioner is that he though posted in another hospital but he reached there and instigated other employees. He was asked to give explanation and that was considered and thereafter, only order was passed directing him to report in the office of Joint Director, Medical and Health, Jodhpur relieving the petitioner from the place of his posting.

The contention of the petitioner is that he was posted in another hospital and he was not present in Umed hospital at the time of agitation. It is submitted that he is ready to face the enquiry. It is submitted that as per the order dated 29.9.2009 itself, it is clear that according to the respondents themselves, they got the information from newspaper news only. It is also submitted that some of the employees have been given warning and they have not been shifted from their place of posting and thereby the petitioner has been discriminated.

In writ petition No. 10060/2009, it has been alleged that the petitioners were not involved in any wrong and there was agitation and in that agitation about 200 persons were involved and only the petitioners have been picked up arbitrarily and have been relieved from their place of posting and have been asked to report in the office of Joint Director, Medical and Health, Jodhpur whereas others have been not shifted and were left after giving warning to them. The petitioners have placed on record copies of the orders passed giving warning to the other employees.

I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the facts of the case.

The Government servants posted at one place and instigating other Government servants at other place itself may be a ground for passing any order of transfer of the employees as the transfer is not the order of punishment and in certain circumstances, the administrative exigency may require for transfer of the employees to maintain harmonious atmosphere.

In the present cases, the petitioners have been given opportunity to explain their stand and thereafter a decision was taken only to remove them from their place of posting and they were directed to report before another authority. Looking to the totality of the facts and the situation under which the impugned orders have been passed, there was full justification in passing the orders. For taking a decision of such type, it is irrelevant that from what source, the employer received the information and in the present case, if the employer has acted upon the information received through news appearing in the newspaper, then the petitioners can certainly prove that the news was wrong but when it has been found by the employer, after giving opportunity to the employees, then there is some substance requiring for taking an administrative decision in the public interest, then the authorities have passed the order well within the jurisdiction as well as in exercise of the administrative powers and in administrative exigency.

The petitioner Shyam Lal''s contention that he was not present on the spot cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. What was the role played by the petitioners in that agitation, if has been looked into by the authorities after giving opportunity to the petitioners and obtaining their explanation, then principle of natural justice has been fully complied with and there is no reason for this Court to interfere in such orders where prima-facie, there appears to be indiscipline of the employees, for which there cannot be any sympathy.

In view of the above reasons, these writ petitions, having no merits, are hereby dismissed.