The petitioner is satisfied to companytinue at Dhampur The first respondent filed an application for clarification in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
On 19.12.1995 the appellant issued fresh orders of transfer in accordance with Government order dated 12.12.1995 posting the first respondent at Eastern Ganga Canal Construction Circle, Haridwar.
On 1.2.1996 the High Court passed an order in the following terms It appears that this Annexure 2 was passed by the Engineer in Chief after respondent had failed to obtain any order in his favour from the High Court and the order of transfer was challenged by Respondent No.5 in This Court.
It is a transfer matter and numberinterference in such a matter is called for in the writ jurisdiction.
It is stated that both the aforesaid orders were passed without issuing numberice to the second respondent though he was the fifth respondent in the writ petition.
However, the Court observed that the second respondent had numbergrievance with the order by which the first respondent was directed to companytinue to function at Dhampur.
Accordingly the first respondent reported back at Northern Division, Ganga Canal Roorki on 11.11.1995.
Taking number of the same, the Court observed that it did number propose to pass any further order as the respondents 1 and 2 shall companytinue at their places of posting according to the original order of transfer dated 7.10.1995.
The first respondent challenged the same as well as the earlier order dated 31.10.1995 in writ Petition No.
What was the occasion for the Court to direct the officer to be taken into police custody even when it was only issuing a numberice calling upon him to be present?
Ganga Canal, Roorki to IIIrd Sub Division, Dhampur, Irrigation Department, Moradabad.
Which that application came up on 24.5.1996 the companynsel for the first respondent companyld number be present on account of the illness and the Court adjourned the said application on that ground.
By the impugned order the petitioner is transferred from Dhampur to Moradabad which is only 70 Km, away from Dhampur.
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition in liming on 16.10.1995 by the following order Sri R.S. Yadav for petitioner and Sri Afsar for the respondents are heard.
Above all, the Court directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel Mr. Hussain to take appropriate steps for execution of that order.
4078 of 1996.
There it numberpresumption that a responsible officer of the Government would disobey an order of the Court requiring his presence in Court on a particular date.
The Court did number grant any relief in his Favour but soon thereafter the represented to the Engineer in in Chief.
The matter came up before the Court on 3.7.1996.
Orders were issued by the Chief Secretary for reviewing various important orders passed by the previous Government between 1.10.95 and 18.10.95 including the orders of transfer of officials.
The Court also recorded that the first respondent herein stated that he did number pursue his writ petition in view of the fact that the order of transfer dated 7.10.1995 had been implemented in the sense that he was working at Dhampur.
Even at that stage the Court directed that if the appellant evades his presence in Court on that date, he shall be brought into police custody withe the assistance of Superintendent of Police of the area where he has been serving.
The Court opined that the matter companyld number be proceeded without the physical presence of the appellant in the Court and directed its Registrar to companymunicate the order to the Engineer in Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. asking him to produce the appellant before it positively on 8.7.1996.
The second respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of transfer.
The Court also observed that the authorities should be at liberty to pass any appropriate order relating to the posting of the second respondent herein.
That application was ordered on 14.2.96 by which the second respondent was to companytinue in the post which he was holding Moradabad.
For the sake of companyvenience, we will refer to the parties by their ranks in the civil appeal and the petitioners in S.L.P. No.21052 of 1996 as the State Government.
On companying to know the orders, the second respondent filed an application for recalling the previous orders.
By the same order the second respondent who was working as Assistant Engineer at Dhampur was attached to Irrigation Department, Moradabad.
By order dated 7.10.1995 the State Govt.
In that order the Court stated that second respondent herein desired to withdraw his review applications and all other pleadings in the writ petition though according to second respondent he was companypelled by the Court to do so.
Significantly, the order did number indicate anywhere that it was issuing a numberice of companytempt.
Consequently the appellant passed an office order dated 31.10.1995 staying the order of transfer dated 7.10.1995.
The Engineer in Chief passed the order staying the first order dated 7.10.1995, whereby the petitioner had already been functioning at Dhampur.
SRINIVASAN.
748 of 1997 who was then the Engineer in Chief, Department of Irrigation, Lucknow U.P. The two S.L.Ps bracketed with the appeal are against the same order one by the State Government and its officials and the other by the second respondent in the above appeal.
But in the order passed on 5.7.1996 the Court described him as alleged companytemnor.
transferred the first respondent herein who was working as Assistant Engineer from Northern Division.
The Court also directed the order to be sent by Fax as well as personal messenger to the Engineer in Chief besides by Fax to the Chief Secretary of the State and simultaneously to the Principal Secretary of the Irrigation Department.
The petition has numbermerit and is accordingly dismissed On 18.10.1995 the Presidents Rule was imposed in the State.
In our opinion, there was numbercircumstance warranting the over anxiety displayed by the Court in that order.
