Court upholds estate officer's transfer order
In what comes as a welcome move for the Haryana government, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the transfer order of the estate officer (EO-2), Gurgaon, Mukesh Kumar Solanki, on Monday.india Updated: Jul 05, 2012 01:16 IST
In what comes as a welcome move for the Haryana government, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the transfer order of the estate officer (EO-2), Gurgaon, Mukesh Kumar Solanki, on Monday.
On February 14, the state government had issued his transfer order, which Solanki termed arbitrary and moved court. The court had stayed his transfer order while the case was being heard.
Solanki had been under surveillance of the Huda administrator for several days after complaints of bribery and other irregularities against him from the public.ed
However, Justice K Kannan upheld the Haryana government's decision and disposed of the transfer case on Monday, allowing the government to relieve him of his current charge as EO-2.
"For the purity of the administration, it is better to allow the transfer order to stand but it ought not to be considered as stigma against the petitioner," said Justice K Kannan.
Solanki had approached the court against the government's transfer order in February stating that the order, with effect from February 14, relieving him of his charge as an Estate Officer and posting him as a sub divisional officer (SDO) in Barwala was illegal and arbitrary.
"The transfer order was biased and based on complaints of Gurgaon administrator Praveen Kumar. It does not hold any merit at all," said Solanki, in his petition filed in the court.
Following the court order, the chief secretary office, Haryana government, immediately issued the relieving order for the EO-2.
"He has been relived on Tuesday and till the time a new incumbent is posted, EO-1, Narender Kumar Yadav, will take care of the EO-2 department as well," states the relieving order.
Meanwhile, the court has asked Praveen Kumar to file his response to Solanki's petition regarding his complaints against Solanki - in connection with extension of contract of M/s DS Development Services - being false.
The court termed the complaint-affidavit a perjury and has sought reply by July 26 under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
"We have already withdrawn the complaints in this regard but we could not apprise the court on time, now we will file our reply by July 26," said Kumar.