HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1844/2018

Dr. Varsha Saxena Wife Of Shri Syed Athar Ali, Presently

Resident Of J-10-A, Sharma Colony, 22- Godam, Jaipur Raj..

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,

Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government

Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

Deputy Secretary To The Govt., Department Of Medical

And Health (Group-2), Government Of Rajasthan, Health

Bhawan, Jaipur.

3.

The Deputy C.M.H.O. FW – 1st, Jaipur.

4.

Community Health Centre, Abu Road, Sirohi. (Raj.).

5.

The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit

Jaipur Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Yashpal Khileree

For Respondent(s)

:

Ms. Vandana Bhansali

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

20/09/2021

1.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 02.01.2018, passed by the Rajasthan

Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur

(hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in an appeal filed by the

petitioner.

2.

The above referred appeal was preferred challenging the

transfer order dated 28.11.2017. Learned counsel submits that as

the transfer itself has been cancelled, nothing remains to be done

so far as challenge to the transfer order is concerned, but still the

(2 of 6)

[CW-1844/2018]

order of the Tribunal needs to be examined, particularly in relation

to imposition of huge exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- and

direction of lodging FIR against the petitioner.

3.

The facts relevant for the above purpose are that the

petitioner, who was working as a Senior Medical Officer in the

Medical & Health Department was transferred by order dated

28.11.2017, from Govt. Dispensary, Ramganj, Jaipur to

Community Health Centre, Abu Road, Sirohi.

4.

Challenging the above order on various grounds, the

petitioner preferred the appeal before the Tribunal on 14.12.2017.

The Tribunal issued notices of the appeal to the respondents.

5.

The Tribunal rejected petitioner’s appeal vide order dated

02.01.2018 with the following observations:-

"13- mi;qZDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vihy cyghu ,oa lkjghu gksus ds

dkj.k xzkg~;rk ds izØe ij gh] e; LFkxu izkFkZuk i=] [kkfjt dh

tkrh gSA”

6.

While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal went on to issue a

host of directions; out of which petitioner felt aggrieved of the

following four directions:-

"(i) vihykFkhZ fnukad 08-01-2018 rd vko”;d :i ls vius

LFkkukUrfjr LFkku ij dk;Zxzg.k djs vkSj ikyuk fjiksVZ vf/kdj.k ds

le{k izLrqr djsaA

(ii) mi;qZDr fcUnq la[;k (i) dh ikyuk ugha gksus dh n”kk esa iz”kklfud

foHkkx vihykFkhZ ds fo:) dBksj vuq”kklfud dk;Zokgh djsA

(iii) vkyksP; LFkkukUrj.k vkns”k fnukad 28-11-2017 ¼vuqyXud&7½ ds

fo:) furkUr lkjghu vihy izLrqr djus ds dkj.k vihykFkhZ ij :i;s

1]00]000@& ¼v{kjs :i;s ,d yk[k½ dk gtkZuk vf/kjksfir fd;k tkrk

gSA

(iv) izeq[k “kklu lfpo] fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx] jktLFkku ljdkj

dks funsZ”k fn, tkrs gS fd vihykFkhZ ij yxk, x, mDr gtkZus dh jkf”k

(3 of 6)

[CW-1844/2018]

:i;s 1]00]000@& ¼v{kjs :i;s ,d yk[k½ mlds vkxkeh rhu ekg ds

osru ls leku :i ls olwy dj jktdks’k esa tek djkosa rFkk olwyh gks

tkus ij fof/kor~ :i ls ikyuk fjiksVZ izLrqr dj bl vf/kdj.k dks

voxr djkosaA

(v) lekpkj i=ksa ds vuqlkj lsokjr fpfdRldksa dh gM+rky “kq: gksus ds

ckn lEiw.kZ jkT; esa yxHkx 300 jksfx;ksa dh e`R;q dsoy bl dkj.k gqbZ gS

fd fpfdRldksa dh bl gM+rky ds dkj.k mUgsa le; ij mipkj ,oa

fo”ks’kK lsok,¡ ugha fey ldhaA ,slh n”kk esa vihykFkhZ ds fo:)

vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k (culpable homicide) ds nq’iszj.k (abetment) ds

fy, izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ nk;j dj i`Fkd ls vkijkf/kd izdj.k lafLFkr

fd;k tkosA

(vi) iz”kklfud foHkkx mDr vkns”k dh ikyuk rhu ekg esa dj ikyuk

fjiksVZ ls bl vf/kdj.k dks voxr djkosaA”

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that

the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the

respondent