Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless they are shown to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

1. The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13 January 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1161 of 2022, by which mid-term and mid-tenure transfer order dated 28 December 2022 issued by respondent no. 1 – State of Maharashtra through its Addl. Chief Secretary has been confirmed.

2. The petitioner contends that she entered in the service of the Government of Maharashtra in its Public Works Department as an Assistant Engineer. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and as such, posted at Public Works Department, Dhule, since 07 August 2020. Before the petitioner could complete her normal tenure of three years, as per provisions of Section 3(1) and 4(1) of the Transfers Act, by order dated 28 December 2022, she has been transferred to the post of Executive Engineer under the establishment of Dhule Municipal Corporation by way of mid-term and mid-tenure transfer. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, bench at Aurangabad, by filing Original Application No. 1161 of 2022, however, it came to be dismissed.

3. Ms. Preeti R. Wankhede, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that impugned transfer order is unjust, arbitrary and mala fide. She would submit that the petitioner was not due for her transfer and could not have been transferred in violation of the provisions of Section 3(1) and 4(1) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as “Transfers Act”]. She would submit that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice while effecting the transfer. She would further urge that the object of her transfer was only to accommodate the respondent no. 4 who exerted political influence to secure the choice posting at PWD Dhule. As such, she alleges that the impugned action is tainted with mala fides.

4. She would further submit that the consent of the petitioner was necessary before sending her on deputation in view of Rule 36 of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981 as well as the procedure as prescribed under Government Resolution dated 17th December, 2016. Apparently, said procedure is not adhered to by the respondent authorities, hence, the order impugned is contrary to the rules prescribed. She would further urge that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal did not consider the above aspects while deciding the Original Application.

5. Ms. Wankhede would further submit that the respondents are trying to justify the action by projecting that the transfer of petitioner has been effected in the interest of the administration since there were many complaints against her. She would point out that the petitioner was never offered opportunity of hearing as regards so-called complaints against her. She would further urge that the respondent no. 4 had requested for transfer on her post. His request was then recommended by Member of Legislative Assembly (in short “MLA”). On such development, a farce is made regarding so-called complaints received against the petitioner and a false story has been cooked up against her, to make out some reason for transferring her to make a way for choice posting of the respondent no. 4.

6. Ms. Wankhede relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the matters of Somesh Tiwari Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in 2009 (2) SCC 592 and Judgement of Madras High Court in case of P. Karunakaran v. The Union of India and others reported in (2014) 4 ServLR 62, submits that if the transfer is based on complaint, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard and in absence of such an opportunity, the transfer order cannot be sustained in law. She would further rely upon the judgment in the case of State of Punjab