Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 81
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, CJ, and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Shyam Kumar Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Writ Appeal No. 400 of 2022 (Jabalpur): against the order
dated 13.4.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 8470 of 2022; Decided on 27.4.2022
R. N. Singh with Rishabh Singh for appellant;
S. S. Chouhan, Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State;
T. K. Modh for respondent No. 2.
Headnote:
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227-- scope of judicial review -- transfer -- order of transfer made on extraneous or unacceptable reasons -- judicial review of such order permissible -- can be interfered with -- Court duty bound in such circumstances to find out whether transfer is bona fide or for extraneous consideration, or as a measure of punishment or otherwise. [Para 9
(2) Civil Services -- transfer -- writ petitioner transferred purely and solely on basis of recommendations of concerned elected representatives -- no other reason assigned -- transfer order not even in public interest -- concerned administrative department declined to transfer petitioner -- concerned Minister made recommendation contrary to opinion of department -- held -- such interference in matters of transfer is highly inappropriate -- transfer of petitioner is not on any administrative ground or in public interest, but only due to insistence made by concerned Minister -- transfer order unsustainable. [Paras 8 to 11
(3) Civil Services -- transfer -- elected representative can always recommend transfer of employee -- however, such recommendation has to be for genuine and cogent reasons -- it cannot be justified by usurping authority of concerned administrative department.
[Para 10
(4) Civil Services-- transfer -- transfer order made purely on ground of recommendation by Minister -- cannot be sustained. [Para 11
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226@227 && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr && varj.k && varj.k vkns'k cká vFkok vLohdk;Z dkj.kksa ls fd;k x;k && ,sls vkns'k dk U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu vuqKs; && gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gS && bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa U;k;ky; ;g irk yxkus dks drZO;kc) fd varj.k ln~Hkkfod gS ;k ugha] vFkok cká dkjdksa ls ;k naMLo:i ;k vU;Fkk fd;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 9
¼2½ flfoy lsok && varj.k && fo'kq)r% vkSj dsoyek= lacaf/kr fuokZfpr izfrfuf/k;ksa dh flQkfj'kkas ds vk/kkj ij fjV ;kph varfjr && vU; dksbZ dkj.k ugha fn;k x;k && varj.k vkns'k yksdfgr esa Hkh ugha && lacaf/kr iz'kklfud foHkkx us ;kph dk varj.k djus ls bUdkj fd;k && lacaf/kr ea=h us foHkkx dh jk; ds foijhr flQkfj'k dh && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && varj.k ds ekeyksa esa ,slk gLr{ksi vR;fèkd vuqfpr gS && ;kph dk varj.k fdlh iz'kklfud vk/kkj ij vFkok yksd fgr esa ugha] vfirq dsoy lacaf/kr ea=h ds vkxzg ds dkj.k && varj.k vkns'k iqf"V ;ksX; ughaA ¼iSjk 8 ls 11
¼3½ flfoy lsok && varj.k && fuokZfpr izfrfuf/k deZpkjh ds varj.k dh flQkfj'k vo'; gh dj ldrk gS && rFkkfi] ,slh flQkfj'k ;FkkFkZ vkSj rdZiw.kZ dkj.kksa ds fy, gksuk gksrh gS && mls lacaf/kr iz'kklfud foHkkx dk izkf/kdkj gM+i dj ds U;k;ksfpr ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 10
¼4½ flfoy lsok && varj.k && varj.k vkns'k fo'kq)r% ea=h dh flQkfj'k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k && iq"V ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 11
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.4.2022 (Annexure-A-1) in Writ Petition No.8470 of 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petitioner's plea challenging the order of transfer, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is an Officer of the State Municipal Services. He is scheduled to superannuate on 31.8.2022. He is presently working as the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur. That when the writ petitioner who was working on the post of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ratlam, he was transferred by the order dated 9.7.2020 to Rewa, as the Joint Director, Urban Development and Housing Department. Within a period of 11 months, by the order dated 4.6.2021, he was transferred from Rewa as the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur. By the impugned order dated 7.4.2022 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition) merely after a period of ten months, he has been transferred to Bhopal as Joint Director, Directorate, Urban Administration and Development, Bhopal. Questioning the same, instant writ petition was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge came to the view that even though there is a frequency of transfer of less than a year, the post of the Chief Municipal Commissioner is a sensitive post. That undue long stay at a particular place aids in development of vested interest. That it is the State Government, being the employer of the writ petitioner, who is in the best position to adjudge suitability of a particular person. Since the petitioner has not pleaded malafides nor was he able to demonstrate that the impugned order of transfer has been issued by any incompetent authority, the writ petition was dismissed.
4. The learned Senior Counsel Shri R.N. Singh appearing for appellant's counsel submits that the impugned order of transfer as well as that of the learned Single Judge are erroneous and liable to be interfered with. That there was no valid reason for transferring the writ petitioner. That he has been transferred frequently on whichever post he held. That he has less than four months to go for his superannuation. Therefore, irrespective of the contentions, he pleads that the ground that he has to retire in less than four months, should have prevailed upon the authority in not transferring him. Therefore, he pleads that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of transfer.
5. The State have filed their additional objections in the Court today. They have also produced the records. It is stated therein that based on the recommendations received by the local elected representative for shifting the petitioner out of the Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur, the petitioner was transferred. It is also contended that the same would not affect his retiral dues nor would there be any financial loss. That the transfer is an incidence of service. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsels.
7. The original records of the case were summoned. The same would indicate that a communication was received from the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 30.12.2021 to the Directorate of Municipal Administration indicating that the Hon'ble local Member of Parliament has made a recommendation for transfer of the petitioner from Burhanpur to Bhopal and to shift the respondent No.2 in his place. However, the department having considered the same, did not recommend the transfer. The file was then placed before the Commissioner of Urban Administration. There also the Commissioner, Urban Administration did not recommend the transfer of the petitioner. The same also bears the signature/approval of the Principal Secretary of the department. Thereafter, the note dated 7.3.2022 indicates that the Minister for Urban Administration has made a recommendation to transfer the petitioner from Burhanpur as well as to transfer the respondent No.2 to Burhanpur. Based on the said recommendations of the Minister, the same was placed for approval before the Ho
