1 CGHC010289662026 2026:CGHC:33009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5673 of 2026 Shri Siddhant Tiwari S/o Diwakar Tiwari Aged About 32 Years Presently Posted As Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, Near Mantralaya, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rohit Shukla Presently Posted As Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Police Office, District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Additional Advocate General SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.31 10:36:03 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the transfer order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh to the State Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau (EOW/ACB), Raipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is presently working as Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, has challenged the impugned order dated 13.07.2026, whereby his services have been taken on deputation from the Home (Police) Department and he has been posted to the EOW/ACB, Raipur. He further submits that the impugned order is, in substance, an order of deputation and has been issued without obtaining the prior consent or willingness of the petitioner. It is contended that deputation to another establishment without obtaining consent of the concerned employee is contrary to the settled principles governing deputation and service jurisprudence. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed. 3 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and submits that the impugned order has been issued purely on account of administrative exigencies. By referring to the order dated 21.07.2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CRMP No.1570/2026, he submits that an affidavit has been filed therein by the Director/Inspector General of Police, EOW/ACB, Raipur, undertaking to make all possible efforts to conclude the pending investigations at the earliest and, therefore, additional officers were required to be posted in EOW/ACB in public interest. Learned State counsel further submits that in view of the proviso to Rule 110 of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, a Government servant may be transferred by the competent authority to a body owned or controlled by the Government even without obtaining his consent. Learned State counsel also places reliance upon the Government Circular dated 12.09.2025 and submits that the impugned order suffers from no legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has been transferred from the Home (Police) Department to the EOW/ ACB, Raipur. It is not in dispute that no option or consent of the petitioner was obtained before issuance of the impugned order. 4 6. The contention of the State is that the transfer of an employee can be effected even without the consent of the Government servant. However, a plain reading of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner's services have specifically been taken on deputation to EOW/ACB. The respondents have not brought on record any specific statutory provision governing deputation to EOW/ACB dispensing with such requirement of consent. Mere reliance on administrative exigency or the Government Circular dated 12.09.2025 cannot override the settled principles governing deputation where the order itself treats the posting as one on deputation. 7. Though the administrative exigency pointed out by the respondents cannot be doubted, particularly in view of the proceedings pending before the Division Bench, administrative convenience by itself cannot validate an order of deputation passed in derogation of the governing legal principles. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner's consent was either obtained or was not legally required under the applicable service rules governing such deputation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, the impugned transfer/deputation order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the present petitioner, is hereby quashed. However, liberty shall be reserved 5 in favour of the State to pass a fresh order, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable service rules. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar