Vipin Kumar Patel vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 25.7.2013 by which the petitioner, who is working as a District Supply Officer in the establishment of the respondents, has been transferred from Katni to Anuppur. The petitioner has also assailed the order of the same date i.e. 25.7.2013 by which the respondent no. 5 has been transferred in his place.

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had previously been transferred in April 2003 on promotion to Satna and thereafter in June 2006 from Satna to Balaghat. It is submitted that on 6.1.2007 the petitioner has been transferred from Balaghat to Satna and thereafter on 28.10.2009 from Satna to Narsinghpur. It is submitted that after a lapse of a short span of 8 months the petitioner was transferred from Narsinghpur to Sidhi on 21.2.2011 and thereafter on promotion from Sidhi to Katni on 24.4.2012.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that now within a short span of 13 months the petitioner has been transferred from Katni to Anuppur by the impugned order dated 25.7.2013 and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed as the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers, contrary to the transfer policy of the State Government which provides for a regular tenure of 3 years at one place. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been issued on the behest of respondent no. 4, the MLA of the district concerned and is, therefore, malafide and deserves to be quashed. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in order to demonstrate the aforesaid aspect, has relied upon Annexures P-10 & P-11 addressed to the Minister of the concerned department wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner is not performing his duties properly and, therefore, he should be transferred to either Dindori, Mandla or Balaghat. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, and Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , submits that the impugned order being malafide and also amounting to frequent transfer in order to accommodate the respondent no. 5, deserves to be quashed. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner however states that the petitioner has already been relieved by the respondents in a great hurry on 29.7.2013.

The learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, on Caveat, submits that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds and that the order in favour of respondent no. 5 has been issued on his promotion and therefore he has been granted posting. It is submitted that the impugned order transferring the petitioner has not been issued to accommodate respondent no. 5.

The learned counsel entering appearance on behalf of respondent no. 5, on Caveat, makes similar submissions as made by the learned Panel Lawyer for the State. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no. 5 has already joined his place of posting on 29.7.2013.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Apparently, the issue raised by the petitioner relates to violation of the transfer policy and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Chaudhary vs. State of M.P. and Others, ILR [2007] MP 1329, after considering all the decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision in the case of B. Varadha Rao (supra) and Rajendra Roy (supra), has held that in case an order of transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority concerned by filing a representation.

It is also observed that in the instant case allegations of malafide have been levelled against respondent no. 4, the local MLA, who is neither the transferring authority nor the competent authority to transfer the petitioner. No malafide against the competent authority have been alleged in the petition. There is nothing on record to indicate that the competent authority has issued the order of transfer on the basis of the letter written by the MLA concerned. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order on the ground of malafide.

In the circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioner has been relieved on 29.7.2013, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing a representation. It is made clear that the petitioner may also file an application for interim relief before the said authority, if so advised, in accordance with Clause-15 of the transfer policy for obtaining appropriate interim orders.

It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so within fifteen days alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the representation, filed by the petitioner, in accordance with the transfer policy, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months thereafter.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the representation by passing a reasoned order.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.