Munni Lal Bhadoliya vs The State of MP and others

Sujoy Paul, Judge

This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court against the transfer order. The transfer order whereby petitioner is transferred from Gwalior to Morena by order dated 13.7.2010 was called in question before this Court in Writ Petition No.4878/2012. This Court directed the competent authority to decide the representation and till such time interim protection was given. Shri R.P.Singh submits that the petitioner is due for his superannuation in August 2013 and, therefore, his transfer order is bad. He also submits that the criminal cases going against the petitioner are pending since 2009 and, at this stage, there is no justification in transferring the petitioner. Petitioner has also raised certain personal grounds.

The transfer order can be interfered with only when it, runs contrary to the statutory provision, changes the service conditions of an employee to his detriment, issued by an incompetent authority or the transfer order is proved to be a malafide one etc.

Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of M.P reported in ILR (2007) M.P 1329 has held as under:-

In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law by the Apex Court in several cases, which we have referred hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the transfer policy formulated by the State is not enforceable as the employee does have a right and the Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. The Court can interfere if there is violation of mandatory statutory rule or if the action of the Government is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful.

Emphasis supplied

The competent authority in rejection order dated 28.7.2012 has considered the representation of the petitioner in detail. It is stated in the impugned order that as per clause 9.26 of the transfer policy those employees, who are involved in any financial irregularities, should be transferred. By placing reliance on a criminal proceeding about financial irregularity/embezzlement, it is opined by the competent authority that in the fitness of things it is proper to keep the petitioner away from Gwalior.

Shri R.P.Singh criticized this order by saying that he is falsely implicated.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the considered opinion of this Court, whether petitioner is really involved in the embezzlement or not, is not the subject matter of the present petition. The respondents have chosen to transfer the petitioner on various grounds including the ground that a permission for prosecution is given by the competent authority against the petitioner for misappropriation/embezzlement. In that situation, it is not in administrative interest to keep the petitioner at Gwalior. In my considered opinion, the said authority has taken a plausible decision. It was open for the said authority either to suspend such employee to keep him away from the record/material or to transfer him out to maintain purity. No statutory violation is pointed out. Even as per the policy, the employees are retained at one place when they have only less than one year to serve. In the present case the petitioner has a longer period and is transferred because of the aforesaid justiciable reason. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference in an administrative order by the writ court. In State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another Vs. Sanjeev @ Bittoo, the Apex Court held as under:

Administrative action is stated to be referable to broad area of governmental activities in which the repositories of power may exercise every class of statutory function of executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial nature. The scope of judicial review of administrative orders is rather limited. The consideration is limited to the legality of decision-making process and not legality of the order per se. The test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. Mere possibility of another view cannot be ground for interference.

The Apex Court in Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another, took this view as under:-

Even so the extent of judicial scrutiny/judicial review in the case of administrative action cannot be larger than in the case of quasi-judicial action. If the High Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the decisions and orders of quasi-judicial authorities, it follows equally that it cannot do so in the case of administrative authorities. In the matter of administrative action, it is well known, more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities; they have a certain amount of discretion available to them.

On the basis of aforesaid, I find no reason on which interference can be made. Resultantly, interference is declined. Petition is dismissed. No costs.