Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S.Chandurkar, V.V.Joshi, JJ.
Raju - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4030 of 2023
Decided On : 11-09-2023
Abhay Sambre, Advocate, Amit Madiwale, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with the procedural requirements of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 is essential for the validity of transfer orders, and that administrative discretion in transfers is generally upheld unless there are clear grounds for interference.
Headnote:
TRANSFER - Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 - Sec. 4(5) - The court upheld the transfer order of the petitioner, emphasizing that the procedure outlined in the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 was followed. The court interpreted the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 4(5), which allows for transfers prior to the completion of normal tenure under certain circumstances. The court concluded that the transfer was justified based on recommendations from the Civil Services Board and approval from the Chief Minister, thus affirming the administrative discretion of the employer in transfer matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector promoted to Motor Vehicle Inspector, challenged his transfer from the Regional Transport Office, Nagpur Rural to Aurangabad, arguing that the transfer was unjustified as it was not recommended by the Economic Offences Wing and occurred shortly before the end of his normal tenure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer complied with the procedure prescribed by the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. The transfer was recommended by the Civil Services Board and approved by the Chief Minister, indicating proper administrative process was followed.
Issues: Whether the transfer of the petitioner was justified under the provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, and whether the court should interfere with the transfer order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to transfer an employee is inherent to the employer, and as long as the procedure outlined in the relevant Act is followed, the court will not interfere in matters of administrative discretion unless there are allegations of mala fides or procedural irregularities.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision not to interfere with the transfer order.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard.
2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 26/6/2023 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original Application No.480 of 2023 thereby refusing to interfere in the order of transfer dtd. 24/5/2023 transferring the petitioner from the Regional Transport Office, Nagpur Rural to Regional Transport Office, Aurangabad.
3. It is the case of the petitioner as pleaded in the Original Application that he came to be appointed on the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector on 20/2/2013. He was promoted to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector in 2017 and was posted at Latur. After completing his tenure at Latur, he was transferred on 10/8/2020 at the Regional Transport Office, Nagpur Rural. Having rendered satisfactory service all along, he was served with the order of transfer dtd. 24/5/2023 by which he was transferred to the Regional Transport Office, Aurangabad on a non-executive post. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order transfer by approaching the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 480 of 2023. After considering the material on record, the learned Member of the Tribunal found that after following the procedure prescribed by Sec. 4(5) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (for short, the Act of 2005) as well as the Government Resolution dtd. 11/2/2015, the petitioner came to be transferred. The learned Memberof the Tribunal therefore refused to interfere with the order of transfer and dismissed the original application.
4. Shri Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the material on record and submitted that in the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Nagpur City to the Commissioner of Police, there was no specific reference to any alleged activities of the petitioner that warranted his transfer. The recommendation made was to transfer four Motor Vehicle Inspectors and two Deputy Regional Transport Officers. There was no recommendation to transfer the petitioner. The aforesaid report was dtd. 23/3/2023. On the basis of aforesaid report, the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur on 3/4/2023 issued a communication to the Principal Secretary, Transport and Ports, endorsing the recommendation made by the Economic Offences Wing. Since the petitioner's name was not included therein, there was no justification whatsoever to have the services of the petitioner transferred by the impugned order. Normal tenure of the petitioner was to end in August, 2023 and shortly prior to such completion, the petitioner came to be transferred. No reasons whatsoever were indicated in the order of transfer. The procedure prescribed by the Act of 2005 had not been complied with and hence the Tribunal ought to have interfered with the order of transfer dtd. 24/5/2023. Assuming that the issue was considered by the Civil Services Board, it lost sight of the fact that there was no recommendation whatsoever to transfer the petitioner nor were there any allegations against him. No first information report was also lodged against him. Since there was no ground made out to transfer the petitioner prior to completion of his normal tenure of posting, a case for interference was made out. Reliance was placed on the decision in Ramakant Baburao Kendre vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [2012(1) Mh. L. J. 951] to urge that the petitioner was entitled for relief as prayed for.
5. Shri Amit Madiwale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions. According to him, the petitioner was transferred after complying with all the requirements of the Act of 2005. He produced the relevant file indicating the process undertaken under the Act of 2005 that led to the transfer of the petitioner. This report was produced pursuant to the directions issued on 31/8/2023. Since t
