Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1174 (MP)

M. K. Gupta v. State of M. P.

2012-11-09

RAJENDRA MENON

body2012
ORDER 1. Petitioner and respondent No. 4 are working as Inspectors, Weights and Measures and this writ petition is filed and the dispute in this writ petition pertains to transfer. 2. Petitioner was appointed in the department in the year 1982 at Tikamgarh. He was promoted as an ‘Inspector’ in the year 2003 and jointed on the post of ‘Inspector’ on 6.6.2003 at Gwalior. In August/September 2003, petitioner was posted as ‘Inspector’ Weights and Measures at Rewa. Thereafter, in August 2006, he was transferred to Sagar. Vide order Annexure P-I dated 13.7.2012, petitioner is transferred from Sagar to Raisen after having remained in Sagar for a period of 6 years and by the same order Annexure P-I respondent No. 4 Shri Rajeev Sachdeva was transferred from Raisen to Narsinghgarh. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to this order dated 13.7.2012, petitioner was relieved vide Annexure P-2 on 17.7.2012. He submitted his joining at Raisen vide Annexure P-3 on 20th July, 2012 and when he was permitted to join, the order of transfer stood executed. Respondent No.4 according to the petitioner has remained in Raisen for about 6 years but now after joining of the petitioner, it is stated that by the impugned order, an executed order of transfer is cancelled and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Challenging the said action mainly on the ground that cancellation of an executed order is only to grant adjustment to respondent No. 4, the same is unsustainable. It stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner having joined and having worked at Raisen for about two months, the transfer could not be cancelled on the grounds canvassed. 5. While issuing notice to the respondents, arguments were already heard on the question of interim relief on 8.10.2012 and respondent No. 4 came out with a claim at that point of time that as his wife was ailing, he has represented for cancellation of the transfer order and as the transfer is cancelled on such consideration, there is no illegality in the same. 6. Taking note of the aforesaid submission and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532 , this Court rejected the stay application and directed the respondents to file the reply. 7. State Govt. 6. Taking note of the aforesaid submission and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532 , this Court rejected the stay application and directed the respondents to file the reply. 7. State Govt. and respondent No. 4 have filed the reply and it is the case of the parties and the respondents that looking to the difficulties expressed by respondent No. 4, the Minister recommended for cancellation of his transfer and taking note of the approval of the Chief Minister, the action is taken. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that except ailment of his wife, no other ground was raised by respondent No. 4 and he sought for cancellation of his transfer, which has been ordered. Petitioner has filed certain additional submission and it is emphasized that even though at the time of considering the stay application, it has been putforth on behalf of respondent No. 4 that transfer was cancelled on his repesentation but no such representation was submitted and, therefore, the action is a malafide action only to grant adjustment to respondent No. 4 and, therefore, it is stated that transfer is cancelled on extraneous consideration and the same is illegal. 9. Shri Sanjay Agrawal emphasized that different statements are made on behalf of respondent No. 4 and the State Government at the time of appointment. It was stated that respondent No. 4 has represented but now there is no representation and as the action is taken on improper consideration, it is stated that the malafide is made out and, therefore, the action be interfered with. 10. State Government represented by Shri Rajesh Tiwari has produced the original file pertaining to cancellation of transfer of respondent No. 4 and he points out that the cancellation was ordered after due co-ordination in council of the Chief Minister and, therefore, there is no illegality in the same. 11. On going through the original file, it is seen that after the transfer was given effect to, respondent No. 4 made certain grievance with regard to his wife’s ailment and produced the documents to show that she has undergone certain surgery and for the present, he should not be disturbed. 11. On going through the original file, it is seen that after the transfer was given effect to, respondent No. 4 made certain grievance with regard to his wife’s ailment and produced the documents to show that she has undergone certain surgery and for the present, he should not be disturbed. It is seen from the original files that respondent No. 4 represented to the Minister of the Department with regard to his transfer and even though no specific document or representation in this regard is produced before this Court but the note-sheet does indicate that the minister took note of the grievance putforth by respondent No. 4 and recommended for cancellation of his transfer and for permitting him to remain in Raisen till the next session i.e. 2013. The matter was thereafter placed before the Chief Minister and after approved of the Chief Minister, respondent No. 4 was permitted to remain in Raisen till 2013 with a direction that in 2013, he has to go on transfer. 12. It is clear that the departmental authorities have considered the grievance of Shri Rajeev Sachdeva and has granted him some benefit. Note-sheet available on record dated 17.7.2012 indicates that initially respondent No. 4 submitted an application seeking 10 days time to join and, thereafter, he sought for cancellation of his transfer to the Minister concerned and the entire action has been taken on such consideration. 13. There is nothing available on record to show that in doing so, any statutory rule or regulation is violated and the malafides are attributed. Only by contending that because there is no representation submitted to the Minister concerned and the Minster unilaterally deciding the claim is a malafide action, malafides cannot be said to be established. Representation for cancellation of a transfer order need not be always in writing. A public representative can be approached orally and on such request being made, a benefit including cancellation of transfer if the employee concerned so desires can be considered and if the competent authority acts on such representation which is made, it cannot be considered that there is malafides in the matter and, therefore, the action is vitiated. 14. Malafides have to be pleaded, established and the material should be available to show that the act complained of is done to give some undue benefit or relief to a person contrary to his entitlement under law. 14. Malafides have to be pleaded, established and the material should be available to show that the act complained of is done to give some undue benefit or relief to a person contrary to his entitlement under law. In the present case, respondent No. 4 has produced documents to show that his wife has undergone surgery and the department has only given him some adjustment upto the year 2013 when general transfers are to be held. 15. In the absence of any material to show that there is malafides in doing so or there is some vested interest of the Minister in the matter other than the administrative consideration or personal inconveniences of the employee, this Court cannot attribute malafides in a matter of administrative dealings with regard to posting and transfer of employees. It is the administrative authorities who are the best judges entitled to take a decision on the grievances made by the employees and in the absence of statutory provision shown to be violated or specific cogent evidence available to show that malafides are made out, interference cannot be made into such administrative action. 16. In the present case, the office note shows that looking to the grievance of respondent No. 4, certain benefit is being granted to him till the next session i.e. 2013 and merely because, there is no written representation in the file, inference of malafides cannot be made when it is a common ground that representations can always be made to the authorities or Minister in charge of district even orally. 17. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. 18. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.