O R D E R

By way of this petition, the petitioner is assailing the validity of transfer order dated 27.11.2020 whereby he has been transferred from the post of Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Pithampur, District Dhar to Office of District Urban Development Authority (DUDA) as Project Officer and in his place the respondent no. 5 has been transferred.

1. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds :

 That the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason hence impugned order is a non-

speaking order;

 The petitioner has only four months left for his retirement;

 He has been transferred in violation of Clause 11.8 of the Transfer Police for the year 2019-2020 which prohibits transfer if less than one year is left for retirement ;

 Earlier, four unsuccessful attempts were made to transfer him from the present place of posting in three years, but all the orders have been quashed by this Court vide orders dated 25.9.2018, 8.4.2019 and 18.7.2019;

 The petitioner has been transferred in order to accommodate respondent No.5;

 The working of the petitioner as Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Pithampur which has been recognised globally and he has been awarded the certificate of excellence for his efforts in making the locality of Pithampur most clear Municipality. The petitioner has also been awarded GREETECH Asia Award of 2020 for solid waste management.

2. After notice, all the respondents have filed the reply denying the facts and the allegations levelled in the petition and opposed the relief claimed by the petitioner on fowllowing grounds :-

 The petitioner has been transferred because of the pending departmental inquiries;

 The petitioner has completed the normal tenure of three years at the present place of his posting and in his place, respondent No.5 has been transferred who has also completed five years at one place of posting;

 There is no mala fide behind the impugned transfer of the petitioner and he has been transferred in order to complete the departmental inquiry without any interference by him and the scope of interference by the High Court is very limited.

3. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that since last three years, the respondents are trying to transfer the petitioner and every time, the transfer orders passed by them have been quashed by this Court. The petitioner was also placed under suspension and even that order has been quashed by this Court. Now, only three months' service is left for his retirement and the petitioner has been transferred in order to victimise him. The impugned transfer order has been issued in violation of Clause 11.8 of the Transfer Policy. Although the petitioner has completed three years at the present place of posting but there is no administrative exigency to transfer him immediately after completion of three years. The petitioner has been transferred to accommodate respondent No.5. He further has emphasised that petitioner's 92 years aged mother is dependent on him and she is taking treatment at Mhow Hospital, hence there is a personal inconvenience because of transfer.

4. Shri Shaswat Seth, learned Panel Advocate appearing for respondents/State has opposed above the prayer by submitting that the petitioner has completed three years as Chief Municipal Officer, therefore, he has rightly been sent to his parent department on his substantive post. Now, respondent No.5 had joined his duties at the place of the petitioner and the petitioner had been relieved. The petitioner has been transferred in accordance with the transfer policy of 2019-2020, hence no interference is called for and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3, has argued that the petitioner has committed various irregularities in respect of appointment cleaning inspectors and accordingly, charge sheet has been issued to him on 4.7.2020 and the departmen