Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 714 (MP)

Bharat Lal Marko v. State of M. P.

2015-07-13

RAJENDRA MENON, SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
ORDER 1. Appellant is working as a Training Officer (Welder) in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Mandla, and by the impugned order dated 15.6.2015, he was transferred from Mandla to Khargon. Challenge to the order of transfer was made on account of the fact that it is in violation of clause 14 of the transfer policy and, therefore, interference be made. 2. The learned writ Court considered the same and after applying the law laid down by a Division Bench in the Case of R. S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P. [ILR 2007 MP 1329], found that on account of violation of transfer guidelines or transfer policy judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible and accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition and in doing so, we are of the considered view that the learned writ Court has not committed any error. 3. However, learned counsel during the course of hearing pointed out that the appellant had also raised a ground of mala fide and as the ground of mala fide have not been taken note of, he invited our attention to the order passed on 6.11.2006 in Writ Appeal No.697/2006. It is argued based on this order that if the grounds of mala fide are made, atleast notice should be issued and reply should be called from the respondents and then only the question of mala fide considered or decided. 4. Shri Yadav, Government Advocate points out that in the present case the mala fide is attributed to certain act of appellant for the year 2011, the transfer order is passed after more than 4 years in the year 2015 and accordingly, he submits that ground of mala fide cannot be considered in this case, as after a period of more than 4 years the reasons of mala fide no more exists. 5. We have considered the question of malafide in the back drop of the present case and the consideration made in Writ Appeal No.697/2006 and the submission made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As far as mala fide are concerned appellant has tried to point out that he has raised certain objections pointing out illegality by the then Principal Shri K. L. Markam and on the ground it is stated that there is mala fide in the matter of his transfer. 6. As far as mala fide are concerned appellant has tried to point out that he has raised certain objections pointing out illegality by the then Principal Shri K. L. Markam and on the ground it is stated that there is mala fide in the matter of his transfer. The complaint against the Principal K.L. Markam was made in the year 2011 and according to appellant’sown showing Shri K.L. Markam is no more holding the post of Prinicipal. The mala fide are said to have attributed to some complaint of appellant, made in the year 2011 and appellant is now transferred in the year 2015. That apart, appellant’s own showing indicate that on the basis of complaint made by the appellant, the principal has been suspended and disciplinary action taken against him. 7. Taking note of all these circumstances and considering the fact that except for making vague allegation about malafide, the fact that the impugned transfer is ordered after a period of 4 years from the date of which the so called act of the appellant on account of which mala fide is 3 attributed is committed and further the fact that transferring authority is none else but directorate of the establishment in Bhopal and against the Officers of Directorate no malafide are alleged or attributed, we see no reason to interfere on the ground of mala fide. 8. Accordingly, finding no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration, the writ appeal is dismissed.