An employee whose suspension has been revoked has no legal right to be posted and continued in the same place of posting on revocation of suspension: Chhattisgarh High Court
An employee whose suspension has been revoked has no legal right to be posted and continued in the same place of posting on the revocation of suspension, as he only has a lien on the post and not on the place of posting has been upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through a single bench led by HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY S. AGARWAL in the case of Ashwani Kumar Mire v. State of Chhattisgarh (Writ Petition No. 250 of 2022). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was earlier working as a Teacher (L.B.) and he was placed under suspension by order dated 08/06/2020 under Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services   (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. After making a valid representation for the revocation of suspension, his suspension was revoked, but now he has been posted at Government Middle School, Kandabani, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham and suspension allowance has been confined for the purpose of pension against which this writ petition has been preferred by him. The Court relied on the judgements in the case of Asif Mohd. Khan v. State of Madhya   Pradesh and Ors. and the decision rendered in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan &amp;   Others. v. Dr R.K. stated that “it cannot be a thumb rule that an employee whose suspension   has been revoked has a right to be posted and continued in the same place of posting on the revocation of suspension, as he only has a lien on the post and not on the place of posting.” Thus, it has clearly been held by the Division Bench of this Court that an employee whose suspension has been revoked has no legal right to be posted and continued in the same place of posting on the revocation of suspension, as he only has a lien on the post and not on the place of posting. The competent authority has the jurisdiction to change the place of posting as per administrative exigency.
1AFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURWrit PetitionNo. 2522Ashwani Kumar Mire S o Shri Alath Ram Mire Agedabout 54 years Working as TeacherGovt.Middle School Jhanki Block Navagarh Distt.Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ­­­Petitioner Versus 1.State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Education Department Mantralaya MahanadiBhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2.Director Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya IndrawatiBhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3.Divisional Joint DirectorDurgDivision Durg Chhattisgarh. 4.Collector Bemetara Distt. Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 5.District Education Officer Bemetara Distt.Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6.Block Education Officer Navagarh Distt.Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ­­­Respondents For Petitioner :­ Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao Advocate For State :­Mr. Amrito Das Addl. A.G. andMr. Avinash Singh P.L. 2Hon ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. AgrawalOrder on Board[Through Video Conferencing]18 01 2022 1.The petitioner was earlier working as Teacher(L.B.) and he was placed under suspension by orderdated 08 06 2020 under Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh CivilServicesis justified in transferringthe petitioner to another District after revokinghis suspension 6.In order to answer this plea it would beappropriate to notice the judgment rendered by thisCourt in the matter of L.P. Saketwhereinthe Division Bench formulated the followingquestion for consideration in paragraph 1 :­“1. Vide order date 27.03.2018 the learnedSingle Judge while dealing with the presentwrit petition on the question whether anemployee placed under suspension on chargesof omission and commission for which adepartmental proceeding was initiated and isstill subsisting has a right to be postedback to the same place of posting afterrevocation of suspension or he can be givenanother place of posting.”7.Thereafter the aforesaid question has beenanswered by the Court in paragraphs 12 and 14 ofthe judgment which states as under :­“12. Keeping in mind what the Full Bench ofthe Madhya Pradesh High Court has had to sayin the case of Asif Mohd. Khan v. State ofMadhya Pradesh and Ors.2 and even withregard to correctness or otherwise of thedecision rendered in the case of KendriyaVidyalaya Sangathan & Others. V. Dr. R.K.Shastri & Another3 we are constrained tohold that the order passed by a coordinateBench of the Single Judge in the cases ofKhadanand Patanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh2 2015MPLJ 4063 2005MPHT 352 5& Others4 and Khelendra Kumar Singh v. Stateof Chhattisgarh5 are not good laws. There isno right of an employee to claim a place ofposting on revocation of suspension as amatter of right and the competent authoritycan very well transfer an employee to yetanother place after revocation of suspensioneven otherwise keeping the exigencies ofservice into consideration as also thatposting such a person on the same post andplace where a departmental enquiry was stillgoing on against him may not be in theinterest of the administration since therecould be every possibility of such anemployee to tamper with the evidence and notallow a free and fair enquiry to be held. Wemay also notice that during period ofsuspension the Head Quarter of an employeeis always fixed away from the place ofposting which has an object and reason. Thesame will be defeated if it is held that theemployee has a lien on place also.14. The question of law for which thereference was made has been answered in thepreceding paragraphs of this order. To sum it cannot be a thumb rule that an employeewhose suspension has been revoked has aright to be posted and continued in the sameplace of posting on revocation ofsuspension as he only has a lien on thepost and not on the place of posting.”8.Thus it has clearly been held by the DivisionBench of this Court that an employee whosesuspension has been revoked has no legal right tobe posted and continued in the same place ofposting on revocation of suspension as he only hasa lien on the post and not on the place of posting.The competent authority has the jurisdiction tochange the place of posting as per administrativeexigency. In that view of the matter petitioner s4 WPS No. 3146 20155 WPS No. 5039 2015 6claim that he ought to have been posted at hisearlier place of posting after revocation ofsuspension cannot be accepted and is herebyrejected. However petitioner is at liberty to makerepresentation before respondent No. 3 forredressal of his grievance posting in DistrictBemetara within three weeks from today which willbe considered and decided within further threeweeks from the date of filing of the representationon its own merits in accordance with law. 9.With the aforesaid liberty reserved in favour ofthe petitioner this writ petition stands disposedof. No cost(s). Sd ­(Sanjay K. Agrawal)JudgeHarneet 7HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ PetitionNo. 2522Petitioner Ashwani Kumar MireVersusRespondents State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. शशसककयससवकककउसकसननललबनकसपनतसलहरणकसपशशततउसससथशनपर पदसथशपनशकशअनधकशरनहहहहतथशसकमपशनधकशरसदशरशउसकस पदसथशपनशकससथशनममपररवतरनककयशजशसकतशहह| 