1 CGHC010255032026 2026:CGHC:29327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5274 of 2026 Vinita Sahu W/o Shri Sushil Kumar Sahu Aged About 45 Years Occupation Assistant Teacher (L.B.) R/o Village Kasdol, Tahsil And District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director of School Education Raipur Directorate of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner-Cum- State Level Chairman State Level Rationalization Committee, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector-Cum-Chairman District Rationalization Committee, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer-Cum-Secretary District Rationalization Committee, Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Advocate For State : Ms. Anuja Pandey, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 13/07/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.15 18:38:14 +0530 2 dated 02/06/2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.5 whereby a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner on the ground that she has not joined at the transferred place pursuant to the transfer order dated 01/06/2025. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: (a) the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher (L.B.), was declared surplus under the Teacher Rationalization Policy and, by order dated 01.06.2025, was transferred from Government Primary School, Amlidih to Government Primary School, Veernarayanpur. Aggrieved by the transfer, the petitioner initially approached this Court in WPS No.5573 of 2025, wherein, by order dated 20.06.2025, liberty was granted to submit a representation before the competent authority and the transfer order was directed to remain in abeyance till consideration of such representation. (b) pursuant thereto, the petitioner's representation was considered and rejected by the District Rationalization Committee on 02.07.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted further representations before the State Level Rationalization Committee, which remained pending. Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued the impugned order dated 02.06.2026 initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner alleging misconduct on account of her failure to comply with the transfer order and to join at the transferred place of posting. (c) assailing the said order, the present writ petition has been filed principally on the ground that since the petitioner's representation before the State Level Rationalization Committee was pending, initiation of 3 departmental enquiry was arbitrary and contrary to the Rationalization Policy. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer order was under challenge before the competent authority in terms of the Rationalization Policy and the petitioner's representations before the State Level Rationalization Committee had not been decided. It is contended that, during the pendency of the statutory remedy, the respondents ought not to have initiated disciplinary proceedings for non- compliance of the transfer order. It is further argued that the impugned action frustrates the remedy available under the Government Policy and is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 02.06.2026 initiating departmental enquiry be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that pursuant to the order of this Court, the committee considered and rejected the representation of the petitioner by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons. Thereafter, the petitioner ought to have gave her joining at the transferred place and instead she again filed the representation, which is not at all sustainable. It is trite law that mere filing repeated representations cannot justify the case of the petitioner and even there is no interim protection in her favour. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached with the petition. 4 6. The undisputed factual position is that the impugned order dated 02.06.2026 merely initiates a departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the allegation that she failed to comply with the transfer order by not joining at the transferred place of posting. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings is thus founded on the petitioner's alleged non-compliance with the transfer order and not on the pendency of her representation before the State Level Rationalization Committee. Merely because the petitioner's representation was pending before the State Level Rationalization Committee would not, by itself, confer any immunity from complying with the transfer order or preclude the competent authority from initiating disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law if the petitioner failed to obey the transfer order. The pendency of a representation does not automatically operate as a stay of the transfer order unless there exists a specific order protecting the petitioner from its implementation. 7. The impugned order only sets the disciplinary mechanism in motion. Whether the petitioner had sufficient justification for not joining the transferred place of posting and whether any misconduct is ultimately established are matters to be examined by the disciplinary authority during the enquiry. At the stage of initiation of departmental enquiry, no prejudice can be said to have been caused warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. In the absence of any jurisdictional error, mala fides or patent illegality in the order dated 02.06.2026, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the decision of the competent authority to initiate departmental 5 enquiry for the petitioner's alleged non-compliance with the transfer order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu