Advocates:
['Ajay Kumrani', 'animesh tiwari', '', 'A G']

1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Judgment Reserved on: 10/10/2018

Judgment Delivered on : 15/11/2018

Writ Petition (S) No. 7269 of 2017

L.P. Saket S/o Shri Sadhua Saket, Aged about 54 years, Posted

as Assistant in the office of Incharge, District Manager,

Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Sukma, District

Sukma (Chhattisgarh) R/o Development Area, Gharaula Mohalla,

Ward No. 19, Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Through the

Managing Director, Hitvad Parisar, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, District

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,

Hitvad Parisar, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Manager (Administration) Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies

Corporation Limited, Hitvad Parisar, Avanti Vihar, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

4. District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation

Limited, District Office Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

: Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocate.

For Respondents

: Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate

2

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

C.A.V. Order

Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice

1.

Vide order date 27.03.2018, the learned Single Judge, while

dealing with the present writ petition on the question whether an employee

placed under suspension on charges of omission and commission for which a

departmental proceeding was initiated and is still subsisting, has a right to be

posted back to the same place of posting after revocation of suspension or

he can be given another place of posting.

2.

It is evident from reading of the order dated 27.03.2018 that the

learned Single Judge seems to be in disagreement with the view taken by yet

another coordinate Bench that an employee had a right to be posted back to

the same place once the order of suspension was withdrawn.

3.

In the two writ applications i.e. Writ Petition (S) No. 3146 of 2015

decided on 08.09.2015 Khadanand Patanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh &

Others as well as Writ Petition (S) No. 5039 of 2015, Khelendra Kumar

Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 03.08.2016, an identical view

was taken by another Single Bench that an employee had to be posted back

in the same place or station.

4.

However, keeping in mind the factual matrix as also the fact that a

coordinate Bench had relied on the ratio of a judgment rendered by a Division

Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was the case of Kendriya

Vidyalay Sangathan & Others v. Dr. R.K.Shastri & Another, reported in

2005 (4) MPHT 352, which may not be good law now in view of a subsequent

3

Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of

Asif Mohd. Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, reported in 2015

(4) MPLJ 406, which has taken a view that an employee has no vested right

to continue at the same place of posting at the time of suspension. The writ

application has been referred to us i.e. Division Bench for resolving the two

views.

5.

Since the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court itself did not

hold the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) to lay down the correct law, therefore, the

learned Single Judge has rightly referred the matter to Hon'ble the Chief

Justice for constitution of a Division Bench to settle the conflict between two

coordinate Benches of Chhattisgarh High Court.

6.

In the present writ application, the Petitioner was posted as an

Assistant at District Office, Janjgir, where he came to be placed under

suspension by order dated 08.09.2017. The Petitioner made repeated

representations against the order of suspension which were taken into

consideration and the suspension order was revoked on 12.10.2017 but it

was decided by the