The main legal point established is that an order of transfer should not be issued in a colorable exercise of power based on misleading information, and proper verification of reports is necessary.

K.K. Trivedi, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity, correctness and legality of the order dated 27.4.2011 issued by the respondent No. 1 by which the petitioner is said to be transferred from Jabalpur to Satna on the post of Deputy Director, Prosecution, and in his place respondent No. 3 has been transferred from Satna to Jabalpur, on the ground that there was no such occasion to transfer the petitioner as he was posted at Jabalpur only vide order dated 28.1.2010 issued by the respondent No. 1. It is alleged that the order impugned has been issued without there being any justified reason or the administrative requirement just to accommodate the respondent No. 3. It is contended that the petitioner joined the place of posting only in the month of January, 2010 and has hardly completed his normal tenure but is sought to be transferred in such manner by the impugned order. Therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

2. This Court considering the prayer made by the petitioner issued notices to the respondents on 29.4.2011 and from the order-sheet it appears that some sort of order granting interim relief was also dictated. However, the Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2, the State, showed certain file to the Court during the lunch break and it appears that after going through the file, the Court passed an order on 29.4.2011 stating that it is not appropriate for this Court to grant stay to the petitioner. The direction was given to the Govt. Advocate to file objection with respect to the grant of stay to the petitioner. The case was directed to be listed on 3rd May, 2011. On this date, when the case was listed again, the file containing proposal for transfer of the petitioner was placed before the Court and this Court was of the opinion that no interim relief was to be granted to the petitioner. Again time was granted to file the reply with a direction that the matter be listed in the week commencing 16th May, 2011.

3. When the matter came up for hearing on 16.5.2011, recording all these facts, this Court specifically mentioned that despite giving opportunity to file reply and making statement that the reply is being filed within a short time, the Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 did not file any reply. On this date, the fact was brought to the notice that the petitioner has already carried out the order of transfer and joined at Satna but he was being compelled to withdraw the writ petition as a letter was written to this effect by the respondent No. 2. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court specifically passed an order on 16.5.2011 directing stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure P-3) and specifically ordered that the petitioner be permitted, to work at his present place of posting at Jabalpur till the next date of listing. Accordingly, the petitioner Joined back at Jabalpur and is still continuing.

4. The return has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 opposing the claim made by the petitioner. It has been contended by them that on an inspection of the office of the petitioner at Jabalpur, a report was submitted that the petitioner was not taking interest in conducting cases of serious offences for which he was specially appointed as a Prosecutor. It is also stated in this report that the petitioner has not taken interest in conducting any cases as Special Prosecutor, in which according to the instructions of the State Government, only Special Prosecutors were to appear. It is also said that the working of the petitioner was found to be totally unsatisfactory and at Jabalpur where several petitions against the department are pending, a person like petitioner should not be allowed to continue on the important post of Deputy Director, Prosecution. With this report the matter was placed for consideration and according to the respondents, this being so