Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 843 (MP)

Ramniwas Sharma v. State of M. P.

2020-09-01

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2020
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 7.3.2020, by which the petitioner has been transferred as Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Ambah District Morena to Municipal Corporation, Morena District Morena as Assistant Commissioner. 2. At the outset, counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that since respondent No. 3 has been transferred from Municipal Council Ambah District Morena, therefore, now he has lost all his interest in the case. 3. This petition has been filed challenging the transfer order on the ground of frequent transfer as well as on other grounds. 4. The necessary facts for disposal of the petition in short are that in the year 1982 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade– II and by order dated 3.8.2015 he was promoted on the post of Chief Municipal Officer and was posted as regular Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Akoda, District Bhind. By order dated 20.9.2017, one Siya Sharan Yadav, Revenue Inspector, was transferred in place of the petitioner, but since the petitioner was not transferred, therefore, he submitted his representation then ultimately by order dated 3.2.2018, he was transferred to Municipal Council, Gohad, District Bhind, which was carried out by the petitioner. Just two days thereafter, fresh transfer order was passed and the petitioner was transferred from Municipal Council, Gohad to Municipal Council, Badoni District Datia and the said transfer order was also carried out, thereafter, by order dated 25.9.2018, the petitioner was transferred to Municipal Council, Karera, District Shivpuri and that transfer order was also carried out by the petitioner. Just 6 months thereafter by order dated 8.3.2019, the petitioner was transferred to Municipal Council, Phoop, District Bhind, which was also carried out by the petitioner. Just 5 months thereafter, the petitioner by order dated 24.8.2019 was transferred to Municipal Council, Ambah, District Morena which was also carried out by the petitioner and now by the impugned order dated 7.3.2020, the petitioner has been transferred as Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Morena. It is submitted that not only the transfer order of the petitioner is without jurisdiction, but it is bad in law because it is frequent in nature. 5. The respondents/State has filed its return and submitted that since the transfer is an exigency of service, therefore, the State Government has rightly transferred the petitioner. It is submitted that not only the transfer order of the petitioner is without jurisdiction, but it is bad in law because it is frequent in nature. 5. The respondents/State has filed its return and submitted that since the transfer is an exigency of service, therefore, the State Government has rightly transferred the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no hard and fast rule that an employee cannot be transferred before completing his tenure of three years. It is further submitted that the transfer order should be interfered by the Court in a rarest of rare case. However, earlier transfer orders of the petitioner and its execution has not been denied by the respondent/State. 6. This Court has already mentioned the different transfer orders which were passed against the petitioner and it is the contention of the petitioner that all those transfer orders were executed by him and the said contention has not been disputed by the State. Further, the petitioner is holding the regular post of Chief Municipal Officer, but he was transferred by posting some In-charge CMO in his place. Why the said procedure was adopted by the State, is neither known nor has been answered by respondents. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned transfer order dated 7.3.2020 is bad in law because it is frequent in nature and the State has not given any explanation as to why the petitioner was transferred so frequently. 7. So far as the other grounds are concerned, since this Court has found that the impugned order dated 7.3.2020 (Annexure P-1) is bad because the same is frequent in nature, therefore, other questions which have been raised by the petitioner are left open to be adjudicated in any other writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 7.3.2020 is hereby quashed. It appears that there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner, but according to the petitioner, he has not carried out the impugned transfer order and has not joined as Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Morena. 9. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to immediately allow the petitioner to submit his rejoining in Municipal Council, Ambah District Morena as respondent No. 3 has already been transferred and the post of Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Ambah District Morena is lying vacant. 10. With aforesaid observations, the petition succeeds and is allowed.