Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 745 (MP)

Sabharam Dhakad v. State of M. P.

2014-06-30

SHEEL NAGU

body2014
Judgment: Sheel Nagu, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure P/1), by which the representation preferred by the petitioner against the order of transfer dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure P/1-A) from Ghatigaon District Gwalior to Bhitarwar, District Gwalior, has been rejected. 2. The petitioner substantively holds the post of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer and earlier approached this Court in WP No. 2342/2014 (S) being aggrieved by non-decision of his representation preferred against his said transfer. The said writ petition was disposed of finally on 16.04.2014 (vide Annexure P/4) with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation. The Court protected the petitioner against his transfer by the interim order till the decision on the representation. 3. By the impugned order (Annexure P/1), the representation has now been rejected on the following two grounds :- 1. By invoking clause 9.19 of the transfer policy dated 01.05.2012 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner has been transferred on the ground that the petitioner being an executive employee/officer cannot be posted in his home district, i.e., Gwalior; 2. Because of complaints received by the Minister concerned; 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has primarily raised two grounds. The first being that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) discloses that the transfer was penal in nature as it is inter alia passed upon complaint received by the Minister concerned. The second being that clause 9.19 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 6. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the transfer policy dated 01.05.2012 (Annexure P/2) is of no avail since the said transfer policy are mere guidelines for assisting the administration and effectively carrying out the process of transfers. Thus, the guidelines do not bestow any right upon the employee concerned, who may be transferred in compliance of or in breach of any of the terms contained in the transfer policy. The decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of M.P. Vs. S.S. Kourav : (1995) 3 SCC 270 & UOI Vs. S.L. Abbas : AIR 1993 SC 2444 are worthy of reference. 7. Perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) reflects primarily two grounds for rejecting the representation made by the petitioner against the impugned transfer. 8. The decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of M.P. Vs. S.S. Kourav : (1995) 3 SCC 270 & UOI Vs. S.L. Abbas : AIR 1993 SC 2444 are worthy of reference. 7. Perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) reflects primarily two grounds for rejecting the representation made by the petitioner against the impugned transfer. 8. Taking the first reason assigned, it is seen that clause 9.19 of the transfer policy has been invoked and the said clause prohibits posting of an executive employee/officer in his home district. The petitioner has been transferred from one block to another block within the same district of Gwalior. Thus, the transfer of the petitioner has not been made outside district of Gwalior and thus there is no occasion to invoke clause 9.19 of the transfer policy (Annexure P/2). Had the State or its functionaries transferred the petitioner outside the district of Gwalior, then the said reason of invoking clause 9.19 may have been justified and not otherwise. Thus, the said reason for posting the petitioner elsewhere on account of his being posted since long in his home district is unwarranted, arbitrary and, therefore unlawful. 9. The other ground of the Minister concerned having received certain complaints against the petitioner cannot be found fault with as the administrative authorities right from the immediate senior officers till Minister concerned, can very well transfer the employee on the ground of the complaints. Since transfer is not a penalty, there is no need to comply with principles of natural justice as a pre-requisite. Thus, even a transfer order passed on the complaints can be categorized as an order passed in public interest and administrative exigency, provided there is no malafide, breach of any statutory provision or lack of jurisdiction. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. : (2007) 8 SCC 150 supports the above view. 10. It is pertinent to observe that the petitioner is posted within the district of Gwalior since 1986 and, therefore his transfer elsewhere even otherwise became due. 11. Another feeble attempt of assailing the order of transfer has been made by the learned counsel for petitioner by contending that the petitioner is neither an executive employee nor an executive Officer and, therefore the said clause 9.19 of the transfer policy is not applicable to him. 11. Another feeble attempt of assailing the order of transfer has been made by the learned counsel for petitioner by contending that the petitioner is neither an executive employee nor an executive Officer and, therefore the said clause 9.19 of the transfer policy is not applicable to him. The said ground becomes insignificant and inconsequential in view of the findings rendered by this Court in regard to alleged breach of clause 9.19 of the transfer policy. 12. In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. 13. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.