Bhagwandas Bhumarkar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 06.08.2019, which is filed as Annexure P/6 alongwith this petition. By the aforesaid order, services of the petitioner namely Bhagwandas Bhumarkar has been repatriated to the parent department. Petitioner was working as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur before passing of impugned order.

Petitioner has challenged the order on the grounds that the order is actuated with malafides and passed on the demand of local M.L.A. It was also submitted by the petitioner that there was a drive to disconnect illegal water connections from rising pipeline, which were hampering the supply of drinking water in the district. When a team of officers of Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur was doing the work of disconnection of illegal connections, a local Ward Member abused and threatened them. FIR was lodged against the local Ward Member and it was the petitioner who was instrumental in lodging the FIR against the accused persons. Petitioner was actively involved in said disconnection drive. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioner is subjected to frequent transfers. Petitioner has been brought as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur on 08.03.2019. Petitioner has also taken a ground of mid-session transfer and had filed identity cards of his sons as Annexure P/3, who are studying in Macro Vision Academy, Burhanpur. Petitioner has pointed out a letter dated 24.06.2019, which was written to local M.L.A., Burhanpur by Deputy Secretary of the Chief Minister. The letter was in respect of transferring the petitioner to some other place. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that this letter was written in response to a letter received by the office of the Chief Minister from local M.L.A. The impugned order has been passed because the petitioner was not giving any favour to local M.L.A. in awarding tenders.

Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has filed an application raising objection for grant of interim relief. It is stated by him that petitioner is repatriated to his parent organization i.e. M.P. Madhyam, which is an autonomous body. Petitioner is not a government employee. Respondent No.3 has joined as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur on 08.08.2019. On these grounds, he opposed the prayer for grant of interim relief to the petitioner.

The Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.1/State has opposed the prayer for interim relief on the ground that local representative can make complaints to the authorities, on which government servants can be transferred. He relied on a judgment of Apex Court reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150, Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs State of U.P. and others . It is further submitted that there is nothing in the FIR (Annexure P/4), which shows that the petitioner was instrumental in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted by him that illegal connections are not being disconnected at the instance of the petitioner, but on the instructions of Incharge Minister as has been mentioned in the FIR. Deputy Advocate General also submits that allotment of tender is to be done by Mayor-in-Council and Commissioner has not role in it and therefore, it cannot be said that impugned order is actuated with malafides. The Deputy Advocate General also denied that the order is passed in the mid-session, which will result in difficulty to the petitioner, as the documents which have been filed by the petitioner are of students who are having different surnames and therefore, the documents itself are doubtful.

Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondents. Petitioner has placed on record the letter dated 24.06.2019, which is addressed to Thakur Surendra Singh Naval Singh, M.L.A., Burhanpur by Dr. Ilaiyaraja T., Deputy Secretary of the Chief Minister. It is mentioned in this letter that a note of Chief Minister has been received in respect of transfer of petitioner to some other place and same is forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Housing. From the letter, it is clear that an information is given to local M.L.A. about action taken on his complaint. Whether the action taken by the State Government was on the basis of the complaint of petitioner by local M.L.A. can only be ascertained when the records of proceedings in 303/CMS/IRT/2019 is perused or if the letter/complaint of local M.L.A. is placed on record. However, considering other circumstances, it is evident that FIR was lodged by the complainant Vishal Mohe against a local Ward Member and his wife, who had opposed the drive of disconnecting illegal water connections. Petitioner is the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation and therefore, it cannot be said that such a drive can be carried out without knowledge or order of the Commissioner, though name of petitioner is not mentioned as complainant in the FIR, neither any letter is produced to show that petitioner was instrumental in lodging the FIR, but it is understood that petitioner is head of the Corporation and he is aware of the happenings in his department and therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is not connected with the drive of disconnection of illegal connections. The respondents had yet to file their reply in respect of FIR and other allegations made in the petition. Petitioner was transferred to serve as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur only on 08.03.2019. Though it is not required to mention the reasons for passing repatriation order and at any time an employee can be repatriated to his parent department, but in the present case, the order of repatriation cannot be said to be an order simpliciter. There are allegations of malafides, which is supported by the letter and also by an FIR, which are placed on record. Petitioner had made allegations and had also made local M.L.A. a party in the writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgement reported in (2003) 11 SCC 740, Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi vs U.P. Jal Nigam and others, in which it is laid down by the Apex Court that transfer of an employee at the behest of politicians without following the guidelines and transfer of an efficient and independent officer arbitrarily or with maldfides is bad and the Apex Court had issued notices to the Chief Secretary in that matter.

In view of allegations of malafides made in the petition, notices of this petition be issued to the respondents to file their reply within a period of four weeks, on payment of process fee within seven days.

Meanwhile, the impugned order of repatriation dated 06.08.2019 is stayed till next date of hearing and the petitioner may be permitted to work at Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur till the next date of hearing.

List the matter of four weeks.

C.C. as per rules.