MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.R. Waghmare, J; Dipak Misra, J
VIJAY SWAROOP SAXENA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS – Respondent
W.A. No. 934 of 2006
Decided on : 30-04-2007
Mrigendra Singh, for the Appellant; Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and Udyan Tiwari, for the Respondent
Transfer orders can only be challenged on violation of statutory rules or if reeked with malafide. Allegations of malafides require factual support.
Headnote:
Transfer - Services - Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 - 2(1)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Range Officer, was transferred to various locations due to his actions against illegal activities. He challenged the transfer orders, alleging political influence and malice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was not reeked with malafide and was in exigency of administration. The appellant was directed to join at his transferred place by a specified date.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and motive of the transfer orders, alleged political influence, and malafide intentions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that transfer orders can be challenged only on violation of statutory mandatory rules or if reeked with malafide. It highlighted the distinction between 'malice in fact' and 'legal malice' and emphasized the need for factual support for allegations of malafides.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to join at his transferred place by a specified date.
Dipak Misra, J.
Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in intra-Court appeal u/s 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellant has called in question the defensibility of the order dated 25-9-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 13528/2006(S).
The facts which are essential to be stated are that the appellant-petitioner had joined the services as a Range Officer on 7-11-1973. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer because of his performance in the year 1996 and he has been actively involved in checking illicit felling of trees. Illegal mining and poaching. While he was posted at Obedullaganj, District Raisen he was transferred by order dated 18-7-2004 and posted to East Forest Division, Chhindwara. After working for 11 months he was visited with the order of transfer on 17-8-2005. The respondent No. 3 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tamiya (P), Production Forest Division, Chhindwara who had completed number of years at Chhindwara was transferred as ACF of Forest, Burhanpur but he neither joined at Burhanpur nor he was relieved from the post at Chhindwara. The appellant, as set forth, had no knowledge about the cancellation or the modification of the order passed in respect of the respondent No. 3. It was contended before the writ Court that the appellant was transferred to remote place at Jhabua from Chhindwara as he was instrumental in conducting a raid in the house of respondent No. 4 which was under construction and found substantial quantity of teak wood for which he had no explanation. When the registration of the offence was under process in the office of the appellant a threat was given to the appellant by certain persons. The appellant submitted a detailed report to the Divisional Forest Officer, East Chhindwara who in turn forwarded the same to the Conservator of Forest and issued notices to the respondent No. 3 for proceeding against him under the Indian Forest Act. It is also contended that the appellant-petitioner had issued a search warrant in the name of Santosh Sharma, the husband of respondent No. 5 who is a sitting Ward Member of Ward No. 17, Municipal Council, Chhindwara. Because of the aforesaid action of the appellant the respondents No. 4 and 5 got enraged and rushed to the Minister of Agriculture who had written a note sheet for immediate suspension of the appellant. Under these circumstances he was visited with the order of transfer because of the unwarranted political influence in the guise of administrative action. In essence, it was urged that because of the lawful action taken against the respondents No. 4 and 5 the appellant-petitioner has been transferred. Being aggrieved by the order of transfer the petitioner had approached this Court W.P.No. 9556/2006(S). The said writ petition was disposed on 31-8-2006 directing the respondents therein to examine the propriety of the order of transfer. The respondents despite the prima facie view expressed by this Court passed an order dated 14-9-2006 by transferring him to Bhopal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P.No. 13528/2006(S). The learned Single Judge without asking for filing of the return directed the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant within four weeks. The said order of the learned Single Judge is the subject-matter of assail in this writ appeal.
It is submitted by Mr. Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has erroneously left it to the discretion of the respondents who are bent upon to harass the appellant inasmuch as the order of transfer has come into being because of the attitude of malice which is founded on the factum that the appellant had taken action against the respondent No. 5 who is the sitting Ward Member of Municipal Council, Chhindwara. It is also urged by him that the order of transfer is politically motivated as the note-sheet wou