Uttam Chandra Meshram vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K Agnihotri, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 19.08.2011 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been subjected to transfer 4 times in a year. The petitioner was first transferred on 05.06.2010 from Takhatpur, District Bilaspur to Balodabazar, District Raipur. Thereafter, on 24.12.2010, the petitioner was transferred from Balodabazar to Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon. The petitioner could join at Chhuriya only on 30.04.2011 on account of the interim relief granted by this Court. Thereafter, on 25.07.2011, the petitioner was transferred on 19.08.2011 from Chhuriya to Gariyaband. The petitioner was again transferred on 19.08.2011 from Gariyaband to Naila, District Janjgir Champa, Thus, this tantamount to frequent transfer. It appears that the administrative exigency has not been exercised in a proper manner and the petitioner has been transferred time and again without any rhyme or reason.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the transfer order has been passed because of administrative exigency. The place of posting has been changed between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 by itself is not sufficient to show that the transfer order has been passed with mala fide intention only to accommodate the respondent No.5.

On perusal of the record, it appears that the transfer order has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.5, who has already spent more than 7 years at Gariyaband and thereafter, also he tried to stay there for which he obtained recommendation letter from various persons. Even copy of the impugned transfer order has been endorsed to the Member of Parliament by referring his letter No.1114 dated 30-7-2011.

The petitioner made a representation to the Managing Director of the respondent Board on 5-5-2011 stating that the petitioner being the Senior Secretary be posted in a bigger Mandi i.e. Nevra, Gariyaband, Mahasamund or Bagbahara, because where he was posted was a `D'' Grade Mandi. It appears that, pursuant to the representation, vide order dated 25-7-2011 (Annexure - P/8) the petitioner was transferred from Churiya to Gariyaband and the respondent No.5 was transferred from Gariyaband to Naila. Thereafter, within a period of 25 days, the Managing Director of the respondent Board issued a fresh order dated 19-8-2011 transferring the petitioner to accommodate the respondent No.5 at Gariyaband, where he had already spent 7 years immediately before transfer on 25.07.2011.

Needless to mention here that by order dated 25-7-2011, the respondent No.5 was transferred from Gariyaband to Naila and within a period of 25 days by order dated 19-8-2011, he was brought back to Gariyaband by transferring the petitioner from Gariyaband to Naila, though it appears that the petitioner was posted at Gariyaband pursuant to his representation dated 5-5-2011.

By order dated 25-7-2011, 17 employees including Secretaries, Mandi Inspectors and Sub Inspectors were transferred from one place to other place and by the impugned order; the transfer was made only to accommodate the respondent No.5 within a period of 25 days. Thus, it is clear that there are series of events to establish that there was a mala fide exercise of power and, as such, the impugned transfer of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

The Supreme Court in Girias Investment Private Limited and another v. State of Karnataka and Others, observed as under :

14...There can be two ways by which a case of mala fide can be made out; one that the action which is impugned has been taken with the specific object of damaging the interest of the party and, secondly, such action is aimed at helping some party which results in damage to the party alleging mala fides...

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, the impugned order dated 19-8-2011 (Annexure - P/1) is quashed.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs.