Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 298
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.C. Sharma, J.
Kishore Singh Baghel v. State of M.P. and another
Writ Petition No.2124 of 2014 (Indore); Decided on 8.5.2014.
Ajay Bagadiya for petitioner;
C.S. Ujjaniya, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2;
Varun K. Chopra, Anand Agrawal and Sourabh Suran for respondent No.3.
Headnote:Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- R.9(1) -- transfer of Transport Inspector -- must be in accordance to policy of Transport Department of State Government -- employee facing criminal case cannot be transferred at sensitive field -- disciplinary authority empowered to place such employee under suspension also.
Held : This Court after careful consideration of the policy framed by the State Government is of the considered opinion that so far as transfer of the petitioner is concerned as he has completed six months tenure, has rightly been transferred out of Sendhwa on completion of six months tenure, keeping in view the policy framed dated 5.7.2005. Once a policy has been framed, the Department is required to follow the policy otherwise such a policy shall only be a piece of paper and shall loose its sanctity. So far as transfer order of the respondent No.3 is concerned, the respondent No.3 is certainly under cloud. The letter of the Lokayukta Establishment, establishes a criminal case has been registered against him and as per policy dated 5.7.2005 as well as Circular of the State Government dated 19.12.1994, by no stretch of imagination he could have been given field posting at Sendhwa, which is certainly a sensitive field posting. Resultantly, the impugned order only to the extent it relates to the respondent No.3 posting him from Bhopal to Sendhwa is hereby quashed forthwith. 2014(1) MPLJ 620 relied on. 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659 and (2009)15 SCC 178 distinguished.
flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz]½ && fu-9¼1½ && ifjogu fujh{kd dk LFkkukarj.k && jkT; ljdkj ds ifjogu foHkkx dh uhfr vuqlkj gh gksuk pkfg, && naM+ ekeys dk lkeuk dj jgs deZpkjh dk laosnu’khy {ks= es LFkkukarj.k ugh fd;k tk ldrk && vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh ,sls deZpkjh dk fuycau djus ds fy, Hkh l’kDrA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % jkT; ljdkj }kjk fojfpr uhfr ij lrdZrkiwoZd fopkj djus ds Ik’pkr~ bl U;k;ky; dh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd tgk¡ rd ;kph ds LFkkukarj.k dk ljksdkj gS] ;Fkk mlus N% ekl dk dk;Zdky iw.kZ fd;k gS] mls uhfr fojfpr fnukad 5-7-2005 dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, N% ekl dk dk;Zdky iw.kZ djus ij lsa/kok ds ckgj Bhd&gh LFkkukarfjr fd;k x;k gSA ,d ckj uhfr dk fojpu gks tkrk gS rc foHkkx ls uhfr dk ikyu djus dh vis{kk gksrh gS vU;Fkk ;g uhfr dkxt dk VqdM+k ek= gksxh rFkk viuh ifo=rk [kks nsxhA tgk¡ rd izR;FkhZ Ø-3 ds LFkkukarj.k vkns’k dk ljksdkj gS] izR;FkhZ Ø-3 fuf’pr :Ik ls lansg ds ?ksjs es gSA yksdk;qDr LFkkiu ds i= ls ;g LFkkfir gksrk gS fd mlds fo:) naM+ ekeyk jftLVj fd;k x;k gS rFkk uhfr fnukad 5-7-2005 rFkk jkT; ljdkj ds ifji= fnukad 19-12-1994 ds vuqlkj] fdlh Hkh dYiuk ij cy nsdj mldh lsa/kok es {ks= rSukrh ugh dh tk ldrh Fkh tks fuf’pr :Ik ls laosnu’khy {ks= rSukrh gSA ifj.kkeLo:i] vkf{kIr vkns’k dsoy ml foLrkj rd ;gk¡ ;g izR;FkhZ Ø-3 dh Hkksiky ls lsa/kok rSukrh ls lacf/kr gS ,rn~}kjk rqjar vfHk[kafMr fd;k tkrk gSA 2014¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 620 voyafcrA 1991 lIyh- ¼2½ ,l lh lh 659 rFkk ¼2009½ 15 ,l lh lh 178 izHksfnrA
1. The petitioner before this Court who is holding the post of Transport Inspector in the Transport Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20.2.2014, by which he has been transferred from check post Sendhwa to check post Jhabua and the respondent No.3 has been posted in place of the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a Transport Sub-Inspector in the Transport Department in the year 1989, vide order dated 9.8.1989 and he was promoted to the post of Transport Inspector, vide order dated 31.12.2002. The petitioner vide order dated 31.7.2013, was posted from check post Malthaon to check post Sendhwa and by the impugned order he has been transferred from check post Sendhwa to check post Jhabua. In his place respondent No.3 Mr. T.P.S. Bhadoriya, who was posted in the Transport office, Bhopal has been posted at the check post Sendhwa.
3. The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court and his contention is that his children are studying at Satya Sai School, Indore. The petitioner is also aggrieved in the present writ petition in the matter of seniority vis-a-vis respondents No.4 and 5. However, at the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer only to the extent the petitioner has been transferred from check post Sendhwa to the check post Jhabua and to the extent the respondent No.3 has been transferred from the Transport Office, Bhopal to the check post Sendhwa.
4. The petitioner has prayed for liberty to file a fresh writ petition, so far as the question of seniority vis-a-vis respondents No.4 and 5 is concerned.
5. The petitioner has raised other grounds also and his contention is that a criminal case has been registered against the respondent No.3 by the Lokayukta Establishment on 23.11.2011 at Crime No.133/2011 and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination the respondent No.3 could have been posted to the check post which is a very sensitive check post, keeping in view the Circular dated 19.12.1994. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the interim order passed by the Gwalior Bench in Writ Petition No.5595/2013 (Praveen Nahar v. State of M.P. and others) dated 23.8.2013, wherein it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that the respondent No.3 T.P.S. Bhadoriya should not have been posted to the sensitive check posts. Petitioner’s contention is that inspite of there being an observation made by the Gwalior Bench of this Court, a prime posting (field posting) has been granted to the respondent No.3 and the transfer order has been passed solely with a view to accommodate the respondent No.3, who is facing a criminal case (who is under cloud).
6. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the various affidavits filed by the Transport Commissioner as directed by this Court and his contention is that the Transport Commissioner in his first affidavit has admitted the pendency of the Lokayukta case i.e. Crime No. 133/2011 and his contention is that once a criminal case was pending for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Transport Commissioner in all fairness should not have transferred the respondent No.3 to a sensitive place (field posting). He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the second affidavit filed by the Transport Commissioner and his contention is that the Transport Commissioner has taken a somersault by filing a second affidavit and has stated that there is no departmental enquiry, no complaint about conduct, indiscipline or dereliction of duty is pending against the respondent No.3 and, therefore, the circular dated 19.12.1994 is not applicable. It has been argued that the present case reflects a colourful exercise of powers on the part of the Transport Commissioner and the transfer order has been passed to accommodate the respondent No.3, on account of extraneous considerations.
