Sudhesh vs Ram Prasad Dadoriya and Others

Heard. By filing this intra court appeal u/s 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant, who was respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, has challenged the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10128/2013 (s).

The writ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 16.08.2013 issued by the Secretary, Forest Department of the State Government, whereby transferring the writ petitioner from Manawar (Sardarpur) Dhar to Bhaura (Baitul). By the same order, the present appellant was transferred from Mandleshwar to Manawar (Sardarpur) Dhar.

Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner''s case was that since he will be retiring on 31.08.2014, his transfer order dated 16.08.2013 transferring him just within one year prior to his date of retirement, is violative of the transfer policy.

Learned Single Judge, keeping in view the date of retirement of the writ petitioner, allowed the writ petition and set aside the writ petitioner''s transfer order with direction to continue him at the present place of posting with a further direction, that in respect of present appellant, the State will be free to issue fresh posting order. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has ignored the specific ground raised by the writ petitioner making a prayer in his representation against the transfer order stating therein, that he be transferred to Morena/Gwalior, and has committed error in quashing the transfer order by observing that the writ petitioner is due to retire on 31.08.2014. He submits that on the date of issuance of the transfer order about more than one year was there to retire the writ petitioner, and therefore, there was no breach of transfer policy. He also argued that in the absence of breach of statutory rule or strong case of mala fide, the learned Single Judge has committed error in making interference into the administrative transfer order passed by the State Government.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State has also supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and has argued that there was more than one year left for the retirement of the writ petitioner, and in the circumstances, there was not even breach of transfer policy. She submitted that the impugned transfer order was issued in respect of 66 Government Employees for administrative reasons, and it should not have been interfered into by the learned Single Judge, merely on account of the fact that the writ petitioner was to retire after one year.

Shri M.S. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and has argued that the pension papers etc. of the writ petitioner are being processed, and therefore, at this juncture, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere into the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

It has now been well settled that in the absence of breach of any statutory rule, strong case of mala fide or transfer order being issued by the incompetent authority, the same cannot be interfered into by the Courts. The alleged breach of policy was also not there as there was more than one year left for the writ petitioner to retire, when the order of transfer was issued. Even otherwise, such breach itself cannot be a ground for interference in the administrative transfer order.

Having regard to the aforesaid, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable.

As a result, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. C. c. within three days.