REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 6 ^th DAY OF JULY, 2022.

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN & o HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1930 of 2022.

Between:-

TARSEM KUMAR SON OF SH. PURAN CHAND, VPO BHARMAR, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA, HP.

.…..PETITIONER.

(BY SH. ANUP RATTAN, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.

2. SMT. SHIKHA RANA (NAME OF HUSBAND NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER) PRESENTLY WORKING AS ADA DC OFFICE KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT KANGRA, HP.

3. ARUN KUMAR, MLA NAGROTA BAGWANA CONSTITUENCY, RESIDENT OF VPO NAGROTA BAGWAN, WARD NO. 6, TEH. NAGROTA BAGWAN, DISTT. KANGRA (HP).

…...RESPONDENTS.

(SH.ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, SH. VINOD THAKUR, SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS, SH. BHUPINDER THAKUR, SH. YUDHBIR SINGH THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERALS AND SH. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER, FOR RESPONDENT- 1).

(SH. NARESH KAUL, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT-2).

(SH. TARUN K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT-3).

________________________________________________________________

Reserved on : 30.06.2022.

This petition coming on for admission after notice this day, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:

O R D E R

How some of the Public Prosecutors have over a pheriod of time shamelessly started hobnobbing with some of the politicians to procure and secure orders of transfer of their convenience is best illustrated in the instant case.

2. Both the petitioner as also the private respondent are Public Prosecutors and have at different times procured D.O. Notes from the local M.L.A. for securing their transfers.

3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3, who is a local M.L.A., issued a Demi-OfÏcial (D.O.) Note No. 379104 on 15.03.2022 for transfer of the petitioner at the behest of respondent No.2.

4. On the other hand, the defence of respondent No.2 is that the petitioner vide notification dated 06.08.2018 had been transferred from Nurpur to Dalhousie, but he managed to get his transfer cancelled through Demi-OfÏcial (D.O.) Note No. 66623 dated 20.08.2018 issued by the local M.L.A. It is further averred that the petitioner managed his transfer thereafter on 15.01.2020 through three Demui-OfÏcials (D.O.s) Notes in the year 2019 that too in condonation of his short stay against Sh. Bhupinder Chand vide DO No. Secy/CM-17006/2017-VIP-A- 145598, dated 10/07/2019, DO. No. Secy/CM-H0503/2017- DhEP-A-189798, dated 10/12/2019, DO.No.Secy/CM/

g17010/2017-VIP-A-190708, Dated 13/12/2019, from ADA iofÏce Nurpur to ADA ofÏce Kangra under District Attorney, Kangra at Dharamshala. However a very important averment has been made in para-6 of the reply which reads as under:-

“6. That it is important to submit here that the proposal for transfer of petitioner from Nurpur to Kangra (ADA ofÏce, where his wife was already ADA) was given by the MLA Sh. Rakesh Pathania, in condonation of short stay against Sh. Bhupinder Chand, who himself was booked under FIR No.110/13 dated 26/04/2013 u/s 452, 147, 149, 353, 332, 506 IPC & 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act in case titled as “State vs. Rakesh Pathania & others”, pending adjudication before the Ld. Court of JMFC, Nurpur. The petitioner being incharge of the prosecution case at that time, procured the DO note from Sh. Rakesh Pathania, who himself was undergoing trial in the said court and managed his transfer at his choice of station with his Wife (Shveta Ji). The act of obtaining DO Note from the person who is facing prosecution, is certainly a misconduct on the part of public servant. So the petitioner has not come before this Hon’ble court with clean hands.”

5. The local M.L.A., who has been arrayed as respondent No.3, has also filed his reply and it shall be apt Hto reproduce paras-2 to 5 of the reply, which read as under:-

“2) That replying