125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:15.10.2025 Sukhwinder Pal Singh Sharma …Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. N.P.S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Block Sangat, District Bathinda to Block Maur, District Bathinda by completely overlooking the transfer policy.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary in the respondent-department on 22.10.2001 and his date of retirment is 31.10.2031. Vide order dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was transferred from Block Talwandi, District Ferozepur to Block Mansa, District Mansa. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was again transferred from Block Mansa, District Mansa to Block Sangat, District Bathinda. However, within a period of period of almost 4/5 weeks, the petitioner was again transferred from Block Sangat, District Bathinda to Block Maur, District Bathinda illegally. He further submits that the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred at Block Maur, District Bathinda, just to accommodate the respondent No.6 and the impugned order is passed by the respondents by completely overlooking the transfer policy (Annexure P-6). Thus, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

3. On advance notice, Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of the official respondents and submitted that the petitioner was transferred from Block Mansa, District Mansa to Block Sangat, District Bathinda on 28.08.2025 and on 03.10.2025, he has been transferred from Block Sangat, District Bathinda to Block Maur, District Bathinda in the same district. He further submits that the transfer has been made by the respondents purely on administrative ground and in routine. Even the petitioner has not alleged any mala fide against anyone. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of “State of U.P and others Vs.Ashok Kumar Saxena and another (1998) 3 SCC” categorically observed that transfer of an employee is within the prerogative power of an employer and normally the High Court should not interfere by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is shown clearly as mala fide or infraction of any professed norms and held as follows:-

“.....The parameters of the powers of a Court under Article 226 vis-a-vis an order of transfer for are well settled. In N.K. SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 7 ORS. (1994) 6 S.C.C. 98, this Court held that interference by judicial review is justified only in cases of mala fides or infraction of any professed norms or principles and where career prospects remain unaffected and no detriment is caused to the concerned Government employee, challenge to the transfer must be eschewed. Reiterating the said proposition in Sri Abani Kanta Ray Versus State of Orissa & Ors. J.T. 1995 (7) S.C. 467 the Court added that transfer being an incidence or service, is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown clearly arbitrary.......

6. Similarly, in Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others (2009) 2 SCC 592 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court again observed that an order of transfer is an administrative order, which is ordinarily an incident of service and the same should not be lightly interfered with. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are reproduced as follows:-

“……Indisputably an order of transfer is an adminis