SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1347

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
Dr. Nagorao Shivaji Chavan – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Sunil Purushottam Bhamre and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10991 of 2018, SLP (C) No. 25625 of 2018
Decided On : 15-11-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Pravin Satale, Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Mr. Samrat Shinde, Mr. Saju Jakob, Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 allow for departures from the normal tenure of three years in cases of administrative exigencies, and transfers are permissible under exceptional circumstances.

Headnote:

Transfer - Government Servants - Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 - Section 3, Section 4

Fact of the Case:

Respondent No. 1 was transferred multiple times due to various allegations and findings of financial irregularities and insubordination. The appellant challenged the transfer order, which was initially allowed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal but declined by the High Court. The case was brought before the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court found that the provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 allow for a departure from the normal tenure of three years in cases of administrative exigencies. The Court held that the transfer of Respondent No. 1 was permissible due to the findings of financial irregularities and insubordination, and no interference with the transfer order was warranted.

Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer of Respondent No. 1 from the post of Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon to Assistant Director, AIDS Control Society, Wadala, Mumbai was valid under the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, emphasizing that while the normal tenure is three years, transfers are permissible in exceptional circumstances or administrative exigencies. The Court also highlighted the findings of financial irregularities and insubordination as justifying the transfer of Respondent No. 1.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the orders passed by the tribunal and the High Court were set aside. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 to join the post in Mumbai within 15 days, failing which the State Government would initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. It is a case where we find that Respondent No. 1 was transferred from the post of Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon vide order dated 05.08.2017, as Assistant Director, AIDS Control Society, Wadala, Mumbai. By the same order, the Appellant had been transferred to the post of District Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Jalgaon. 67 other doctors were also transferred on administrative grounds from one place to another.

3. Respondent No. 1 had been appointed as Medical Superintendent, Ghoti District, Nasik, in September, 1996 and remained there till July, 2002. In July, 2002, he was transferred from Ghoti to Nasik as a proper Medical Officer, where he worked till 13.06.2005. Vide order dated 13.06.2005, Respondent No. 1 was transferred from Nasik to Jahwar tribal place in Thane District, but he did not join at the place where he was transferred for five years and 20 days. Again, he obtained his posting back to District Hospital, Nasik vide order dated 03.07.2010 and remained posted at Nasik till 03.03.2014. Thereafter, on 05.03.2014, Respondent No. 1 was transferred from District Hospital, Nasik, to District Civil Hospital, Dhule, as Civil Surgeon.

4. On 16.08.2016, Respondent No. 1 was transferred from Dhule to Jalgaon, and as a Civil Surgeon he joined there.

5. There are various allegations made as to his functioning. However, what is significant is that Chief Executive Officer, Jalgaon, wrote a letter to the Commissioner, Health Services and Director National Health Mission, Mumbai, pointing out the financial irregularities, acts of omission and commission committed by Respondent No. 1 while he was discharging his duties as Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon. On 05.06.2017, a Committee was constituted to look into the conduct of Respondent No. 1. The Enquiry Committee found a prima facie case against Respondent No. 1 of financial and procedural irregularities and insubordination vide report dated 18.08.2017.

6. It transpires that the appellant and others had questioned the decision taken by the Government of non-practicing allowance vide G.R. dated 07.08.2012. There was yet another incident at Beed when appellant was posted at Beed. He had conducted a cesarean surgery on Mrs. Vaishali Bansode and it was claimed that she died due to medical negligence of the appellant; post-mortem was conducted; a Committee was formed and the Committee found him guilty of medical negligence, he was found practicing and drawing non-practicing allowance. This fact is disputed by the appellant. He had filed a representation which is stated to be pending consideration. There were certain charges levelled on appellant of improperly touching certain women during the course of Nurse selection. For inquiring into the said allegations, a Committee was also constituted. The Committee exonerated the appellant and the complaint was found to be baseless as per report dated 17.09.2018.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop of facts, Respondent No. 1 was transferred from Jalgaon to Mumbai and the appellant was transferred in his place as to take over as Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon. The order was successfully assailed by the appellant before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application vide order dated 01.02.2018. The High Court declined to interfere, as such the appeal is before us. The Government has supported its order of transfer dated 05.08.2017. The order has been questioned on the ground of violation of statutory provisions prescribing normal tenure of three years.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the opinion that the High Court as well as the Tribunal have erred in law in the facts and circumstances of the case in relying upon the provisions contained in Section 3 and Section 4 of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Sections 3 and 4 are extracted hereunder:

3. Tenure of post
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top