Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 664 (MP)

D. C. Sharma v. State of M. P.

2013-05-17

Sujoy Paul

body2013
ORDER 1. This writ petition challenges the order of transfer dated 28.3.2013, Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioner, a Deputy Director, is transferred from Morena to Bhopal. 2. Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred to Morena and joined at Morena only on 23.7.2012 and within a short span of time he is again transferred, which amounts to frequent transfer. The transfer order is also challenged on the ground that the respondent No. 3 is an agent of respondent No. 2 and is in connivance with respondent No. 2. By placing reliance on paras (x) and (xi) of the pleadings of the writ petition, it is stated that respondents No. 2 and 3 made an attempt to pressurize and blackmail the petitioner. They demanded money and when petitioner did not succumb to their pressure, they preferred false complaints and ultimately questions were asked in the State Assembly against petitioner. By placing reliance on a newspaper cutting, it is stated that on the basis of question of respondent No.2-M.L.A., the petitioner was transferred and, therefore, the transfer order is malafide in nature. By placing reliance on the representation (page 37), Shri Raghuvanshi submits that the petitioner intimated the departmental authorities that he is being pressurized by the MLA and needs protection but the department rather protecting him, transferred him which is arbitrary exercise of power. 3. Per Contra, Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate, submits that the transfer order is passed in administrative exigency and in public interest. He submits that the complaint alone can be a ground for transfer and unless it casts stigma, no interference is warranted. He supported the order of transfer. 4. Shri H.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Shri Pradeep Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, also supported the order. Shri Shukla states petitioner’s record is not good and he earlier filed an incorrect affidavit before the Court in a transfer matter. In addition, he submits that there are various complaints against the petitioner. A chart showing star questions in the State Assembly is filed as Annexure R-2/V. 5. Shri Pradeep Shrivastava also supported the order and filed the very same chart which is filed by Shri Shukla, along with his return. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A chart showing star questions in the State Assembly is filed as Annexure R-2/V. 5. Shri Pradeep Shrivastava also supported the order and filed the very same chart which is filed by Shri Shukla, along with his return. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The transfer order can be interfered with only if it violates any statutory provision, proved to be malafide, changes service conditions of an employee to his detriment or passed by an incompetent authority. None of these grounds is available in the present petition. The petitioner has not chosen to allege mala fide against the transferring authority by impleading him eo nominae . In absence thereof, no mala fide can be attributed against the transferring authority. This view is taken by Supreme Court in (2004) 12 SCC 390 (Medley Minerals India Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others); (1995) 2 SCC 570 (State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal) and by a Division Bench of this Court in 2011 (3) MPHT 479 (Bhagwat Singh Verma v. State of MP and others). Thus, the allegation of mala fide cannot be gone into against the transferring authority in this matter. 8. Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi although submits that respondent No.2 is an elected MLA from Gwalior (Rural) and therefore has no authority to raise objection or question before the State Assembly regarding a matter pertaining to Morena, I am not impressed with this contention and it is devoid of any merit. I am not required to comment on the prerogative of an elected Member of the State Assembly but I am unable to hold that Member of Assembly can raise question in the Assembly only regarding his/her own constituency. 9. It is clear that the impugned order does not cast any stigma and is not a punitive order. Although petitioner is transferred within a short span of time, it cannot be interfered with because he is a class-2 officer and principle, which is applicable for frequent transfer for class-3 and class-4 employees, is not applicable qua the present petitioner. 10. The apex Court in (2004) 4 SCC 245 (Union of India and others v. Janardhan Debanath and another) opined as under:- “The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. 10. The apex Court in (2004) 4 SCC 245 (Union of India and others v. Janardhan Debanath and another) opined as under:- “The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehavior is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehavior or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon, the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated.” A bare perusal of this judgment shows that on the basis of allegation also an officer can be transferred. No enquiry can be insisted upon for the purpose of transferring an employee in exigency of service/administration or to enforce decorum. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner was unnecessarily transferred by the respondent. To maintain decorum and transparency also an officer can be transferred on administrative ground. 11. However, in the manner respondent No. 3 has preferred the complaint, Annexure P-2, it creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the said complaint. The petitioner joined at Morena on 23.7.2012. As per Annexure P-2 dated 30.7.2012, he took a meeting of Agriculture Extension Officers on 26.7.2012. The respondent No. 3 stated that in the said meeting the petitioner made certain statements which shows that he is a corrupt person etc. However, I am unable to gather as to how this complaint is preferred within four days. How discussion in the meeting, which was confined for Government officials, came to the knowledge of respondent No. 3 ? The petitioner hardly completed seven days at Morena and on 30.7.2012 a complaint was lodged about the corrupt conduct of the petitioner. No source of information, on the strength of which said complaint was lodged, is mentioned. The allegations and apprehension of corruption are mentioned in Annexure P-2 without permitting the petitioner to perform at Morena. This is a strange aspect which creates serious doubt about the credibility and genuineness of the allegations mentioned in Annexure P-2. No source of information, on the strength of which said complaint was lodged, is mentioned. The allegations and apprehension of corruption are mentioned in Annexure P-2 without permitting the petitioner to perform at Morena. This is a strange aspect which creates serious doubt about the credibility and genuineness of the allegations mentioned in Annexure P-2. The said complaint, Annexure P-2, was followed by other complaints also. The allegation of the petitioner is that the news in the local newspaper were published at the instance of respondent No. 3. 12. I am only inclined to observe on the basis of aforesaid factual backdrop that in the present scenario the Government Authorities are required to act on the complaints with utmost care and caution. Sometimes unscrupulous persons having vested interest prefer complaints to malign the image of Government Officials. Thus, such complaints need to be dealt with special care and caution. However, in the present case, the star questions were repeatedly asked in the State Assembly and the concerned Minister has reportedly made some statement in the Assembly. On the basis of aforesaid, the State Government thought it proper to transfer the petitioner. In my opinion, there is no illegality in the said order. 13. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, I am unable to hold that the transfer order is illegal. Consequently, no interference is warranted. 14. Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.