Shanker Bhola Mandavi vs State Of Chhattisgarh

By this order, I.A. No. 1 is being disposed of.

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 12-06-2018 whereby and whereunder he

has been transferred from the Accountant, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samittee Nagri, District Dhamtari to Accountant, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samittee,

Kondagaon District Kondagaon.

Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has been transferred with a mala fide intention to

accommodate the respondent No.5. The impugned order is without any administrative exigency.

Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 argued that Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereafter called as

'CSAMB') has not adopted the transfer policy issued by the Chhattisgarh Government. In Krisi Upaj Mandi Samittee , Kondagaon serious

irregularities and corruption were found and the person incharge of the account of said Samittee was removed and there was a vacancy of post of

accountant. Thus, petitioner was transferred to that place. Hence, the I.A. 1 may be rejected.

Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Counsel for respondent No. 5 argued that his transfer from Abhanpur to Nagri took place on his representation which was

made on the health ground of his mother.

Counsel for the petitioner Shri Malay Shrivastava placed reliance on an order of this Court dated 11-11-2016 passed in WPS No. 6061/2016

(Ravishankar Tiwari -v- State of CG and ors) wherein impugned transfer of the petitioner was stayed till the next date of hearing on the ground that

respondent No. 4 had specially been brought back though earlier he had rendered 8 years of service in that place.

Shri Amitesh Tiwari, counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. N.C. Singhal -v- Union

of India and ors [(1980) 3 SCC 29] wherein hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that transfer in posts which are in the same grade or are considered

equivalent can be effected on administrative exigencies.

He also placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxminarayan Mehar -v- Union of india and others [(1997) 3 SCC 87] wherein

Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is true that as far as possible the convenience of the officer belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled

tribes may be considered and he may be posted near the home town but the authority has power to transfer him when the administrative need arises.

He also placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP and others -v- Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402] wherein

Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that transfer is prerogative of the authorities concerned and Court should not normally interfere therewith,

except when (i) transfer order shown to be vitiate by mala fides or (ii) in violation of any statutory provisions, or (iii) having been passed by an

authority not competent to pass such an order. Allegation of mala fides must be based on concrete material and must inspire confidence of the Court.

He also placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad -v- State of UP and others [(2007) 8 SCC 150]

wherein the hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that inference by the Court with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. As repeatedly

held in several decisions of the Supreme Court, transfer is an exigency of service. It should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of law in

exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service

rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities who issued the order were not competent to pass the orders.

In the aforesaid case laws cited by the respondents no. 2 to 4, aforesaid observations have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the time

of the final disposal of the cases considering the merits of the same.

As per the Annexure R-2/2 dated 11-5-2018 serious financial irregularity and embezzlement were found in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kondagaon

and inquiry is required by Lekha Adhikari or an officer superior to it.

As per Annexure R-1, respondent No. 5 had made the representation for transfer at Dhamtari on his own expenses due to distance and for

looking after his mother.

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances prima facie it does not appear that the petitioner has been transferred to adjust the

respondent No. 5. Thus, the petitioner does not get any help at this stage from the aforesaid order passed in

Ravishankar Tiwari's case (supra).

In the case is hand, prima facie it does not appear that the impugned order violates any statutory rules or regulations or it has been passed by the

authority without jurisdiction or issued with mala fide intention. Prima facie it does not cause any prejudice, problem, hardship to the petitioner and it

could not be termed as illegal.

In the case in hand, prima facie it does not appear that the impugned order is passed on an irrelevant ground and it is passed by way of, or in lieu

of punishment.

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. No. 1 is rejected.

The petitioner may file rejoinder of the reply of Respondent No. 5 within two weeks.

List the matter after two weeks.