Sh. Anil Kumar Sanyal v. State of H.P

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. M. R. Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 3 & 4. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. (Oral)

This judgment shall dispose of the present petition under Order 47 read with 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the petitioner (5th respondent in CWP 2 No. 4140/2012) with the prayer that the judgment passed in this writ petition on 13.6.2012 be ordered to be recalled/reviewed to the extent it pertains to the direction issued to the respondents qua his transfer from District Mandi to the plant of the 3rd respondent at Dattnagar in District Shimla.

The petitioner herein was the 5th respondent in the writ petition and was duly represented on the day when the same was decided vide judgment dated 13.6.2012, Annexure P-1. The fact, however, remains that appearance on his behalf was put in on that day itself and without taking on record his version, the writ petition was decided with the following direction to the 3rd and 4th respondents: (cid:147)Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd and 4th respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months from today. The delinquent officer i.e. the 5th respondent shall not influence the witnesses or inquiry proceedings or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever and hence the 3rd respondent is further directed to transfer him out forthwith from District Mandi and post him in its plant at Dattnagar in District Shimla. (cid:148)

The petitioner herein is not aggrieved by the first part of the direction issued to the 3rd and 4th respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings pending against him within a period of six months. He, however, is aggrieved by the direction, which relates to his transfer from District Mandi to Dattnagar, Shimla, may be due to the fact that his 3 wife and daughter are serving as Teachers in D.A.V Public School, Mandi and in the College of B. Pharmacy respectively and residing in the official residence which was allotted to him during his posting there. His further case is that the writ petitioner who himself is an accused in FIR No. 10 of 2002, has no legal right to assail the revocation of his suspension by the Board of Director of the 3rd respondent and in the alternative to seek a direction from this Court qua his transfer to Dattnagar, that too by filing the writ petition in his capacity as so called (cid:145)pro bono publico(cid:146). He allegedly did so and approached this Court to oust the petitioner from District Mandi where he was posted as Senior Manager and not only looking after the activities being carried out by the 3rd respondent-Federation, in District Mandi alone but in Kullu, Hamirpur and Bilaspur Districts also with malafide intention to make room for a person in the rank of Assistant Manager to manage the affairs of the 3rd respondent in all these four Districts. The writ petitioner allegedly succeeded in such illegal designs under the garb of the judgment sought to be reviewed as he has been now transferred to Dattnagar. It has further been urged that had these facts been available on record, the issuance of a direction qua the transfer of the petitioner herein to Dattnagar would have not been issued by this Court.

It is seen that under order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a petition of this nature on the ground that certain facts though were in the knowledge of the petitioner, 4 however, could not be produced at the time when the judgment sought to be reviewed could not be brought on record. The facts now brought on record by the petitioner/ respondent in this petition could not be produced by him earlier as the writ petition was disposed of on the very first day of his entering appearance, can be entertained. This Court thus proceed to dispose of this petition finally.

At the very out set, learned counsel representing the 3rd and 4th respondents has stated at the Bar that the said respondents have no objection in case the petitioner herein is ordered to be transferred either to Hamirpur in new units of the 3rd respondent being made functional shortly or in its unit at Kangra. As regard the official residence he had occupied at Mandi, his previous place of posting, the 3rd respondent can take care of that aspect of the matter in terms of the relevant Rules/instruction, applicable in this behalf. Learned counsel representing the petitioner herein, on instruction, has stated that adjustment of the petitioner in the unit of 3rd respondent at Hamirpur and a direction to the said respondent not to force him to vacate the official residence at Mandi would serve the ends of justice.

Consequently, in the nature of the order we propose to pass in this petition, there is no need for us to go into the controversy in this petition, on merits and a direction to the 3rd respondent to adjust the petitioner in its unit at Hamirpur and consider his request for retention of the official accommodation at Mandi in view of the domestic 5 problems, highlighted in this petition particularly when no one is posted at Mandi as Senior Manager so far, would serve the ends of justice. Resultantly, the judgment passed by us in CWP No. 4140 of 2012 on 13.6.2012 stand modified accordingly.

With these observations, this review petition stands disposed of finally, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge. August 28, 2012 (naveen)