1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 6.3.2013, whereby the respondent No.2, Commissioner, Higher Education while revoking the suspension of the petitioner posted him to Government College, Chanderi (Ashok Nagar). The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 2.5.2011 (Annexure P-2). At that point of time the petitioner was working as Lab Technician in Government Excellent Science College, Gwalior. This order of suspension was revoked by the same authority by Annexure P-1.

2. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed this order on the basis of Division Bench judgment, reported in 2005(4) MPHT 352 (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others v. Dr. R.K. Shastri and another). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on revocation, the petitioner was required to be reinstated on the same place from where he was placed under suspension. Shri Prashant Sharma submits that after suspension the petitioner could have been transferred by the competent authority but in the light of Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra), it was not open for the respondent No.2 to post the petitioner at Chanderi on revocation of the suspension.

3. Per contra, Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the order and submits that if the relevant paragraphs of Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra), are taken into consideration, it will make it crystal clear that the said judgment has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. He further submits that Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra), has no application and this point was considered by another Division Bench of this Court in ILR (2003) MP 491 (Union of India and others v. Sri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate).

4. In rejoinder submission, Shri Prashant Sharma submits that the contention of learned Additional Advocate General is devoid of any merits wherein it is argued that Dr. R.K. Shastri’s case, the Division Bench has examined the nature of power exercised by the appellate authority while considering the appeal of the petitioner therein. Shri Prashant Sharma submits that if something is impermissible for the appellate authority, the same cannot be treated as permissible for the original authority. He submits that the appellate authority is equipped with more power than the original authority who placed the petitioner under suspension. For this reason only, the order of the original authorityis put to test before a higher authority (appellate authority). He submits that if revocation at a different place other than the place of suspension is impermissible for the appellate authority, for the same reason it is to be held as impermissible for the disciplinary/appointing authority. No other point is pressed by learned counsel nor any other authority is cited by them.

5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General has relied on Division Bench judgment in Sri Vilas Ramesh Chand Tarhate (supra), and tried to distinguish the judgment passed in Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra). The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is totally based on the judgment of Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra). Before dealing with those judgments, it is noteworthy that the basic principle to consider the judgment/precedent is that a judgment has to be examined in the facts and circumstances in which it is passed. This is settled in law that a judgment is an authority on a question which has been decided by it and is not a precedent on something which is logically flowing from it. The apex Court opined it in following words :

“Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan [(2003)3 SCC 485] :

7. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant were rendered in different factual background. A decision is an authority for what it decides and not for what could be inferred from the conclusion.

Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd