- (1.) Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, assisted by Sri Utsav Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) In both the writ petitions, the suspension orders, which have been passed mainly on the same allegation and issue, have been assailed and in the case of Ashish Kumar Dubey, the impugned order whereby his representation which was preferred in compliance of the order of this Court has been rejected and the order of transfer of petitioner-Ashish Kumar Dubey has been assailed, therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are being decided by a common order.
(3.) Notably, this Court has passed order dated 14. 2. 2020 in Service Single No. 2749 of 2020; Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U. P. and others, wherein transfer order and order rejecting the representation of said petitioner, namely, Anand Kumar Sharma was assailed and this Court has decided said writ petition finally permitting the said petitioner to prefer a representation with the direction to decide the representation in a manner mentioned in the order dated 14. 2. 2020, therefore, for the purposes of transfer order in writ petition of Ashish Kumar Dubey, the order dated 14. 2. 2020 passed in the case of Anand Kumar Sharma (supra) shall cover the issue. For the brevity, the order dated 14. 2. 2020 passed in re; Anand Kumar Sharma (supra) is being reproduced herein below:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has passed the order dated 10. 2. 2020, which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has passed the order dated 03. 02. 2020 which reads as under: "Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. Petition has been filed against the initial transfer order dated 03rd October 2019 and the order dated 05th December 2019 whereby petitioner's representation against his transfer has been rejected. Against the initial transfer order, the petitioner had earlier preferred Writ Petition before this Court registered as Writ Petition No. 32361 (SS) of 2019 which was disposed of by means of order dated 25th November 2019 granting liberty to petitioner to prefer a representation before opposite parties, which has thereafter been decided by means of impugned order. Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that petitioner was posted at Lucknow on 18th February 2019 on his own request and within a matter of few months had been transferred leading to filing of earlier writ petition. In the impugned order, it has been stated that there was certain complaints made by Constable Athletic in the U. P. Police Sports Control Board with regard to sexual harassment. It has been indicated that the complaints were thereafter referred to Senior IPS Officer who gave her report substantiating the complaints made. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to the report submitted in the month of July 2019 with the submission that the aforesaid proceedings were initiated against two other persons in which petitioner's name did not figure. It has also been submitted that a perusal of initial complaint also reveals that the same is not against the petitioner. Furthermore, it has been submitted that petitioner was never posted in the U. P. Police Sports Control Board and was in fact throughout functioning in the 35 Battalion of the Provincial Armed Constabulary and therefore there was no occasion for him to have resorted to any misconduct against any female Constable Athletic in the Sports Control Board. ;