Babu Singh vs State Of M.P. And Another

Heard.

The appellant is aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.4.2019, whereby WP No.2147/19 has been dismissed.

The appellant who was holding the post of Assistant Registrar, had filed the writ petition challenging the transfer order dated 24.1.2019 whereby he was transferred from Ujjain to Rewa on the administrative ground. The transfer order was challenged on various grounds and reply and rejoinder were filed and after completion of pleadings the learned Single Judge heard the matter and has found that the order of transfer impugned in the writ petition did not suffer from any error and has accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order of transfer is a punitive order because it has been passed on the ground that the appellant had not taken appropriate steps for registration of two societies and had disobeyed the orders of the superior authorities in this regard. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592.

As against this, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the impugned order.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant had challenged the order of transfer raising the ground of frequent transfer, malafides, distance to the transferred place etc. and each of the grounds has been duly dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the light of limited scope of interference in the order of transfer. Learned Single Judge in this regard has held that:-

"8. It is settled law that the transfer orders are not subject to the judicial review by the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the said order suffers from malafide and issued inviolation to any Rules and Regulation. Vide order dt.1.8.2o15, the petitioner was transferred from Indore to Gwalior and thereafter vide order dt.26.11.2016, he was transferred from Gwalior to Ujjain and he was also given a additional charge of the office of Assistant Registrar Indore Division also. By the same order, one Ajay Khare, Assistant Registrar was transferred from Ujjain to Rewa. Thereafter, the petitioner has almost completed the substantial period of posting at Ujjain and it is not the case of frequent transfer. So far the allegations against the petitioner in respect of non-registration of the two societies are concerned, a charge sheet has already been issued to him on 6.2.2019, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this court to make any comments in respect of the role of the petitioner in non-registration of the two societies.

The respondents have produced the original note sheet which reveals that the petitioner has been transferred after taking approval from the Chief Minister in coordination. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been given only administrative work of the Assistant Registrar because the proposal has been also initiated much prior for issuing the charge sheet to him therefore, he has been kept away from the work of registration. So far the distance between the Ujjain and Rewa is concerned, the State of Madhya Pradesh is geographically very big State in which the Government employees are liable to be transferred from one place to another irrespective of the distance between the two destination. The employees are bound to suffer the long distance transfer in big State. The post of Assistant Registrar is also very limited at District places only, therefore, the long distance cannot be avoided. Prima facie there is no malafide behind the transfer of the petitioner.

In a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court viz. In B. Varadha Rao versus State of Karnataka (AIR 1986 SC 1955), Shilpi Bose Versus State of Bihar and Others (AIR 1991 SC 532) Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas (AIR 1993 SC 2444), State of MP and Another Versus S.S. Kourav and Others [1995 3 SCC 270) Arvind Duttatraya Dhande Versus State of Maharashtra [1997-6 SCC 169], Mysore Paper Mills Limited, Bangalore Versus Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association, Bhadravati and Another [1999-6-SLR-77]; National Hydroelectric Power Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Versus Damodar Prasad Pandey and Others [2004-12-SCC-299]; Airports Authority of India Versus Rajeev Ratan Pandey [JT 2009 (10) SC 472] Somesh Tiwari Versus Union of India and Others [2009-2SCC-592] and Rajendra Singh Versus State of UP and Others [2010-1-SLR-632], has held that in the transfer matter of a government employee, scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the constitution is very limited.

The Apex Court has also held that so far as the personal inconvenience of a Government employee in respect of transfer is concerned, he should first approach to the concerned authority who has transferred him. It is not for the Court to entertain writ petition against transfer on the ground of personal inconvenience.

In view of the material available against him in the original note sheet, no case for quashment of order dt.24.1.2019 (Annexure P/1) is made out.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed."

The appellant has raised the issue that the order of transfer is punitive order, but a perusal of the record as also a minute perusal of the transfer order dated 24.1.2019 reveals that the appellant has been transferred on the administrative ground. The learned Single Judge has found that the appellant has already completed substantial period in the present place of posting. So far as the allegation against the appellant in respect of non registration of two societies is concerned, the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to make any comment on this issue as the charge sheet in this regard has already been issued. In the matter of Somesh Tiwari (supra) relied upon by counsel for the appellant also it has been held that transfer on administrative exigencies ought not be interfered with by courts. The record does not reflect that the order of transfer has been passed by way of punishment.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in refusing to interfere in the impugned order of transfer. The appeal is found to be devoid of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.