Rameshwar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Balak Mahto Ag ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 17-08-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30.4.2011 for his transfer. The challenge also is to the consequential orders dated 22.11.2011 and

12.7.2012 rejecting his request for repatriation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of an alleged unsavory incident between him and one Sri Shyam Shankar, also a Clerk, both of them were issued show cause notice on 28.4.2011. After consideration of the reply, by order dated 30.4.2011 the petitioner was transferred to Barh and the latter to Bikram. The latter joined his transferred place of posting. The petitioner also joined at Barh. Subsequently the Regional Deputy Director Health, on 12.9.2011 held that the transfer order was not in consonance with government circulars and cancelled the same. It did not make any reference by name either to the petitioner or the aforesaid Shyam Shankar. Consequently Sri Shyam Shankar has been brought back to Patna by an order dated 16.11.2011 referring to the order dated 12.9.2011. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from and Sri Shyam Shankar.

The petitioner after joining Patna High Court CWJC No.13931 of 2012 (2) dt.17-08-2012 2 at Barh made a request for being accommodated inter alia at Punpun. He was subsequently adjusted at Punpun. Sri Shyam Shankar moved this Court in CWJC No. 8681 of 2011. The order dated 16.11.2011 bringing Sri Shyam Shankar back to Patna is based on the dated 12.9.2011 and not on any order of the Court in CWJC No.8681 of 2011. The writ application was disposed as having become infructuous. The distinction urged is fanciful and irrelevant. The order dated 30.4.2011 had a sound legal basis. Perhaps there may have been no occasion for the Court to interfere with the same. But if the respondents suo motu have decided to whittle it down with regard to Shyam Shankar alone Article 14 of the Constitution mandates that if reasons for issuance and annulment were the same, similar treatment has to be meted out to the petitioner also.

In (1998) 2 SCC 407 (Director General of Police & ors V. G. Dasayan) the principle that parity shall also apply in case of punishment has been laid down. Applying the analogy the Court finds no reason for the respondents to meet out differential treatment to the petitioner in the facts of the case. Learned Counsel for the State submits that it appears from Annexure 12 dated 29.9.2011, that matters are pending before the Principal Secretary of the Department. Let the Principal Secretary now pass appropriate orders with regard to the petitioner also in light of the present discussion preferably within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha, J)