Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
Shantanu Kemkar, J.
Rajesh Kumar Shakya
Vs.
State of M. P. and Another
W. P. No. 7825 of 2009 (s)
Decided On: 27.11.2009
Transfer - Administrative Exigency - Circular dated 8-9-2009 - [Circular dated 8-9-2009] - The court found that the petitioner had been subjected to frequent transfers without sufficient reasons, and the impugned transfer order was passed to accommodate the second respondent. The court held that the transfer and posting back of the second respondent amounted to a mala fide exercise of powers, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Chief Executive Officer, was transferred multiple times within a short period, and the impugned transfer was alleged to be mala fide to accommodate the second respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the frequent transfers of the petitioner were not justified and were made to accommodate the second respondent, constituting a mala fide exercise of powers.
Issues: Frequent transfers without sufficient reasons, mala fide exercise of powers, administrative exigency, and compliance with statutory rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfers in public service should be for professed purposes and not to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It also emphasized that transfers without sufficient justification would amount to a mala fide exercise of powers.
Final Decision: The impugned transfer order and consequential orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Shantanu Kemkar, J.
1. It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that pleadings are complete.
With consent heard finally.
Petitioner is working on the post of Chief Executive Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. He has been transferred from Barwaha to Mhow vide order dated 28-10-2009 (Annexure P-1) and the second respondent a Block Development Officer has been posted at his place as In-charge Chief Executive Officer. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been subjected to frequent transfers inasmuch as, firstly, he was transferred at his own request from Badnawar to Sonkatch on 28-2-2009, thereafter he was transferred for the reasons of administrative exigency on 29-8-2009 from Sonkatch to Barwaha which order he duly complied with on 25-9-2009. Again he has been transferred vide impugned order dated 28-10-2009 from Barwaha to Mhow. According to him the impugned transfer order is not bona fide and has been passed to accommodate and bring back the second respondent to Barwaha, who was transferred from Barwaha to Sonkatch very recently vide order dated 29-8-2009 (Annexure P-5) in the capacity of In-charge Chief Executive Officer.
3. The first respondent State Government has filed reply. It has been stated that the petitioner has been transferred on account of administrative exigency and as such no case for interference in the impugned transfer order is made out. According to the first respondent the petitioner has not pointed out any mala fide in his transfer order and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. The second respondent has filed an application for vacating the stay and has stated that the second respondent had already assumed the charge of the said post on 28-10-2009 much before passing of the interim order by this Court. In support documents Annexure R-1 and R-2 have been filed. Learned Senior counsel for the second respondent has also placed on record the Circular dated 8-9-2009 to contend that if the post of Chief Executive Officer at any Janpad Panchayat falls vacant, the charge of the said post has to be given in the priority firstly to the S.D.O. (Revenue)/Deputy Collector, in his absence to the Development Block Officer of Janpad Panchayat of which the charge is to be given and thirdly in terms of priority to the Chief Executive Officer/Development Block Officer of the nearest Janpad Panchayat and thereon to other officers as mentioned in the said Circular. In the circumstances, according to him the second respondent has rightly been given the charge of the said post.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents in my considered view the petitioner has been subjected to the frequent transfers and that the impugned transfer order has been passed to accommodate the second respondent who has been given charge of the said post by bringing him back from Sonkatch. From the documents on record it is revealed that on 28-2-2009 the petitioner was transferred from Badnawar to Sonkatch at his own request. Thereafter, before completion of normal tenure of posting at Sonkatch he was transferred vide order dated 29-8-2009 from Sonkatch to Barwaha on administrative grounds. He complied with the order and joined at Barwaha on 25-9-2009. Immediately, thereafter vide impugned order dated 28-10-2009 (Annexure P-1) he has been transferred from Barwaha to Mhow on administrative exigency. True it is that first transfer order which was passed on 28-2-2009 was at his own request but still it was a transfer. Thereafter within six months he was transferred from Sonkatch to Barwaha vide order dated 29^8-2009 on account of administrative ground. He complied with the same and joined at Barwaha on 25-9-2009. Immediately thereafter the impugned transfer order has been issued on 28-10-2009 again showing it to be for administrative exigency. What was the administrative exige
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
