Jyoti Sunere vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Mandideep, District Raisen, under Article 226

of the Constitution of India against an order dated 20.6.2019 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No.1 â€" Principal Secretary, Urban

Development & Housing Department, Bhopal whereby the petitioner’s services have been transferred from Mandideep, District Raisen to

Municipal Council, Hata, District Damoh. In the same order, the respondent No.4, who is the Assistant Manager, Industries Department and presently

employed as In-charge, Chief Municipal Officer, Seoni-malwa, has been transferred to the place of the petitioner.

The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is a case of frequent transfer, as on earlier occasion, the petitioner

was transferred on 8.5.2017 (Annexure P/2) from the post of Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur to the post

of Project Officer, District Urban Development Authority, Sanchi, Raisen and thereafter, on 22.11.2018 (Annexure P/3), she was again transferred

from the office of the Urban Development Authority, Sanchi, Raisen to the post of Chief Municipal Officer, Mandideep, Municipal Council, District

Raisen and subsequently, vide order dated 20.6.2019 (Annexure P/4) the petitioner has been again transferred from Mandideep, District Raisen to the

post of Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Hata, District Damoh, which is under challenge in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid order of transfer has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.4,

who happens to be the husband of an Ex-MLA. It is further submitted that even otherwise the original posting of the respondent No.4 was as

Assistant Manager of the Industries Department and therefore, he could not have been brought into the services of Municipal Council and given the

post of In-charge Chief Municipal Officer as he does not belong to the State Municipal services. Learned counsel has relied upon Section 87 and

94(7) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Learned counsel has also referred to the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of E.P.

Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another (1974) 4 SCC 3, N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others (1994) 6 SCC 9 and Somesh v. Union of India

and others (2009) 2 SCC 592. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rajesh Kumar Shakya v. State of

M.P. and another, 2010 (1) MPLJ 656.

A detailed reply has been filed by the respondents-State opposing the averments made in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents-

State has submitted that it is not a case of frequent transfers as earlier the petitioner was posted in District Raisen at Sanchi, however, subsequently,

the petitioner has been transferred in the same District and on the post of Chief Municipal Officer, Mandideep. Thus, an intra-district transfer i.e. in

the same district cannot be said to be a transfer but only a posting. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been transferred apparently on the

ground of administrative exigency, as while she was posted at Sanchi, serious allegations of financial irregularities to the tune of Rs.50.00 Lacs have

been leveled against her and an inquiry report conducted by the Competent Officer in the month of January, 2019 has also been placed on record as

Annexure R/6. It is submitted that a show cause notice dated 25.01.2019 (Annexure R/2) was also issued to the petitioner and she had filed reply to

the same. On 13.2.2019, vide Annexure R/4, the Collector, District Raisen has also written to the State Government drawing the attention of the

Commissioner, Urban Administration Department to the fact that the petitioner was earlier posted at Sanchi where serious financial irregularities are

alleged to have been committed by her and now she is being given the charge of Chief Municipal Officer, Mandideep, which is in far more financially

sound condition, thus, the possibility of further financial irregularities cannot be ruled out and therefore, her posting at Mandideep would not be in the

interest of the State. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the aforesaid letter which has been written by the Collector

on 13.2.2019 is much prior to the date of transfer dated 20.6.2019 and therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer has been effected on account of

any mala fide intentions of the State.

So far as the allegation regarding the appointment of respondent No.4, who is In-charge, Chief Municipal Officer, Seoni-malwa is concerned, it is

submitted by the learned counsel for the State that his transfer is also purely based on the administrative exigency and it is the petitioner’s

appointment which is the subject matter of this petition and which has been done only on the ground of administrative exigency arisen out of the

financial irregularities committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the facts regarding financial irregularities have not been

disclosed by the petitioner in this petitioin and as such she has not approached this Court with clean hands and on this ground only the petition is liable

to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has also reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents-State. It is, however,

submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent No.4 was appointed as In-charge, Chief Municipal Officer in the year 2006 and subsequently, he

was also appointed on the post of Chief Municipal Officer at different places, namely, Hoshangabad, Sihore and Raisen and in other places also he

was posted as Chief Municipal Officer and thus, it cannot be said that merely because the respondent No.4 happens to be the husband of Ex-MLA,

special treatment is being given to him by the State.

In rebuttal to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the respondents-State regarding non-disclosure of fact about irregularities, learned

counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations of financial irregularities relate to the petitioner’s appointment at Sanchi and therefore,

it has nothing to do with the present issue of her transfer from Mandideep..

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

It is true that the petitioner has been transferred on 8.5.2017 from Municipal Council, Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur to the post of Project Officer,

District Urban Development Authority, Sanchi, District Raisen. Thereafter, on 22.11.2018 she was again transferred from Sanchi, District Raisen to

the post of Chief Municipal Officer, Mandideep, Municipal Council, District Raisen and finally vide order dated 20.6.2019 from Mandideep, District

Raisen to the post of Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Hata, District Damoh. But, as has been contended by the respondent, allegations of

financial irregularities have been alleged against her and disciplinary proceedings are also proposed against her vide the inquiry report dated

13.02.2019. In view of the same, if the respondents have decided to transfer her to some other district, the same is well within the prerogative of the

State and cannot be questioned by the petitioner. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also distinguishable under the facts

and circumstances of the case and are of no help to the petitioner.

As a result, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No costs.