Bombay High Court
Sanjeev Bhagwanrao Kokil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 October, 2012
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, V.K. Tahilramani
1 1677.12.doc
SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1677 OF 2012
Sanjeev Bhagwanrao Kokil,
Age 57 years, Occ:Senior Police Inspector,
R/at.Police Officer's Quarters,
2/4, Carter Road, Bandra (West),
Mumbai - 400 050. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
[Summons to be served on the
Learned Government Pleader appearing
for the State of Maharashtra under
Order 27 Rule 4 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908]
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Brihan-Mumbai having office at
L.T.Marg, Opp.Crawford Market,
Mumbai - 400 001
[Summons to be served on the
Learned Government Pleader appearing
for the State of Maharashtra under
Order 27 Rule 4 of the Code of
Civil Procedure 1908]
3. Padmakar G.Juikar,
Age adult, Occ: Government service as
Senior Polcie Inspector transferred from
Crime Branch, Mumbai to M.R.A. Marg
Police Station, Mumbai 400 001. ...Respondents
......
SQ Pathan 1/27
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:38 :::
2 1677.12.doc
Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.Prathamesh Bhargude i/b Mr.Sugandh
B.Deshmukh for Petitioner.
Mr.P.M.Palshikar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Respondent No.3 present in-person.
......
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON: 5.10.2012
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 9.10.2012
JUDGMENT (PER A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.):
1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal dated 4.5.2012 in Original Application No.174 of
2011. The Tribunal rejected the Original Application preferred by the
petitioner challenging the letter dated 7.2.2011 issued by Respondent No.2
and consequential order of Respondent No.1 published on 5.4.2011. The
factual matrix as reproduced by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment is
not disputed. The same reads thus:
"2. The Applicant was posted as a Senior Police Inspector at M.R.A.
Marg Police Station, Mumbai. By a letter dated 24 th January, 2011,
Respondent No.2 conveyed to Respondent No.1 the approval of the
State Government to a proposal to transfer the Applicant for posting in
Amravati City and to replace him at M.R.A. Marg Police Station,
SQ Pathan 2/27
3 1677.12.doc
Mumbai by Respondent No.3. Accordingly, Respondent No.1
published an order in the Police Notice dated 25 th January, 2011 giving
effect to the decision of Respondent No.2 as conveyed by its aforesaid
letter. However, Respondent No.2 wrote a letter to Respondent No.1 on
7th February, 2011 stating that the approval of Government was actually
for the transfer of the Ap0plicant to Armed Police L-Division, Mumbai
and the earlier letter dated 24th January, 2011 mentioned Amravati City
by an inadvertent error and directing that the order dated 25 th January,
2011 issued by Respondent No.1 posting the applicant to Amravati City
should be cancelled and a revised order posting the Applicant in Armed
Police L-Division, Mumbai should be issued. In compliance with this
direction, Respondent No.1, by an order published in the Police Notice
dated 5th April, 2011, cancelled his earlier order published on 25 th
January, 2011 qua the Applicant and posted him in the Armed Police
L-Division, Mumbai. Being aggrieved, by this CA, the Applicant has
impugned the said letters dated 24th January, 2011 and 7th February,
2011 issued by Respondent No.2 and the consequential orders
published by Respondent No.1 in the Police Notice dated 25 th January,
2011 and 5th April,2 011. His prayer is that these letters and orders be
quashed and set aside and he be granted all consequential service
benefits.
3. As has been noted above, the letter of Respondent No.2 dated 24th
January, 2011 conveying the approval of Government to the transfer of
the Applicant to Amravati City has been superseded by its subsequent
letter dated 7th February, 2011. Similarly, the order of Respondent No.1
published in the Police Notice of 25 th January, 2011 inter alia
transferring the applicant to Amravati City was cancelled qua the
Applicant by the order of Respondent No.1 published in the Police
Notice dated 5th April, 2011. Consequently, the said letter dated 24 th
January, 2011 and order published on 25th January 2011 are non est and
the prayer for them to be quashed and set aside does not survive and is
rejected as redundant. Hereafter, therefore, this judgment considers the
prayer to quash and set aside only the aforesaid letter dated 7 th
February, 2011 issued by Respondent No.2 and the consequential order
of Respondent No.1 published on 5th April, 2011."
(emphasis supplied)
2. The Tribunal rejected the argument of the petitioner that the
impugned communications cum order were in the nature of transfer order.
SQ Pathan 3/27
4 1677.12.doc
Instead, the Tribunal held that the petitioner, having been transferred from
M.R.A. Marg Police Station to Armed Police L-Division, Mumbai, it did
not entail in change of headquarter and was, therefore, not a case of
transfer within the meaning of Maharashtra Government Servants
Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official
Duties Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 2005'). For this,
reliance was placed on the unreported decisions of Division Bench of this
Court in Shri R.P. Shivdas vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1 and R.S.
Kalal vs. State of Maharashtra2. The Tribunal also rejected the argument
of the petitioner that the transfer order was vitiated because the matter was
not placed before the appropriate Board constituted under the Resolution
dated 25.7.2008 to consider the proposal to transfer the petitioner in the
backdrop of complaints against him, which was the basis for his transfer.
It also rejected the argument that the proceedings before the Police
Establishment Board were vitiated because non-member officers
participated in the meeting. It also rejected the argument of the petitioner
that the Establishment Board did not record reasons for the impugned
transfer. The next argument of the petitioner that the transfer order issued
1 Writ Petition No.3301 of 2010 decided on 11.10.2010
2 Writ Petition No.8898 of 2010 decided on 30.11.2010
SQ Pathan 4/27
5 1677.12.doc
against the petitioner suffered from the vice of malafide and malice as also
that the same was arbitrary and unjustified, was also rejected. Taking
overall view of the matter, the Tribunal rejected the challenge to the
impugned communications.
3. The petitioner, has challenged the said decision of the Tribunal and in
effect, the impugned transfer order transferring him from M.R.A. Marg
Police Station to Armed Police, L-Division, Mumbai. According to the
petitioner, he was last transferred on 22.5.2009 within Mumbai from one
post to another. Further, by virtue of section 3 of the Act of 2005, being
tenure transfer, the petitioner could not have been transferred before expiry
of 3 years therefrom. However, the petitioner was transferred vide order
dated 26.1.2011 issued under the signature of Dr.Chering Dorje, DCP, Zone
I, Mumbai, Exhibit K from M.R.A. Marg Police Station to Amravati City
for administrative reasons. Once again, the petitioner was transferred
because of the impugned order dated 7.2.2011 issued under the signature of
Section Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, exhibit N,
to Armed Police L-Division, Mumbai. These two transfer orders have been
issued in quick succession, within a short time. In any case, both these
SQ Pathan 5/27
6 1677.12.doc
orders were issued before expiry of tenure transfer of three years from
22.5.2009. He then contended that even if the factual position mentioned in
the impugned communication dated 7.2.2011 to the effect that due to error,
the earlier transfer order mentioned as petitioner being transferred to
Amravati instead of Armed Police L-Division, Mumbai was to be accepted
as correct, even so, this communication is in the nature of transfer order.
That order has been passed in breach of the mandate contained in section 3
of tenure posting and also without following the procedure u/s 4, in
particular, under proviso (ii) of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) thereof.
Further, no satisfaction has been recorded by the Competent Authority
within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Act. No special reason has been
recorded in the impugned transfer order except that the transfer was "for
administrative reasons". That cannot be considered as exceptional case in
which powers u/s 4(5) can be invoked. Further, contends the petitioner, the
respondents have tried to support the impugned transfer order on grounds
which are not so mentioned in the transfer order itself. Thus, those grounds
cannot be looked at for considering the matter in issue. For this he places
reliance on Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi vs. Municipal Corporation,
SQ Pathan 6/27
7 1677.12.doc
KDMC & Ors.3 He further submits that keeping in mind the stand taken
by the respondents, it is obvious that the petitioner has been transferred on
complaints made against him. The transfer of the petitioner, therefore,
could be considered only after the complaints were duly placed before the
Board constituted as per the G.R. Dated 25.7.2008, exhibit U at pages 263
to 266. That procedure has not been complied with. In substance, it is
contended, that the impugned transfer is a punitive transfer and is passed
without giving opportunity to the petitioner to offer his explanation qua the
complaints received against him. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal having been rendered by one Judge, who was a
non-judicial Member, the same suffers from the vice of Corum Non Judice,
keeping in mind the observations of the Apex court in the case of UOI vs.
R.Gandhi4.
4. The respondents have countered the above submissions and have
instead supported the conclusion of the Tribunal. With reference to the
grievance of the petitioner that appropriate procedure under Section 4(5) of
the Act of 2005 has not been followed or that the Competent Authority
3 (2004) 11 SCC 417
4 (2010) 11 SCC 1
SQ Pathan 7/27
8 1677.12.doc
referred to in Section 4(5) read with Section 6 of the Act of 2005 has not
recorded its satisfaction, reliance is placed on the proposal regarding
transfer of the petitioner at pages 239 to 241, which was considered by the
concerned Authorities at different level upto the Chief Minister of the
State, on the basis of which, the impugned order came to be passed. The
said proposal reads thus:
x`g [email protected]&5c
iksyhl vk;qDr] eqacbZ ;kaps i` [email protected] fn- 23-6-2010 ps
i= d`i;k igkos- ;k i=kUo;s R;kauh iksfu Jh- lat; Hkxoku dksdhG] ek-j-
vka- ekxZ] iksyhl Bk.ks] eqacbZ ;kaph R;kaP;k fo:/nP;k rdzkjho:u l'kL=
iksyhl y&foHkkx] eqacbZ ;sFks [email protected] dj.ksckcr o R;kaP;k cnyhus
fjDr gks.kk&;k tkxsoj oiksfUk Jh- inekdj xkslkoh tqbZdj] xqUgs 'kk[kk] xq-
v-fo-] eqacbZ ;kaph cnyh iz'kkldh; dkj.kkLro dj.ksckcrpk izLrko 'kklu
ekU;krslkBh ikBfoyk vkgs-
2- lnj izLrkokP;k vuq"kaxkus oiksfu Jh- dksdhG ;kaP;k cnyh
izLrkokl cnyh [email protected] eaMGkus ekU;rk fnyh vkgs fdaok dls gs
dGfo.;kckcr 'kklu i= fn- 1-7-2010 o fn- 18-10-2010 vUo;s
iksyhl vk;qDr] eqacbZ ;kauk dGfo.;kr vkys gksrs- lnjph ekfgrh iksyhl
vk;qDr] eqacbZ ;kauh R;kaP;k fn- 22-10-2010 P;k i=kvUo;s ikBfoyh
vkgs-
3- Jh- latho Hkxoku dksdhG] ofj"B iksyhl fujh{kd] ek-j-
vka- ekxZ iksyhl Bk.ks] eqacbZ ;kapsfo:/n eqlkfQj [kkuk ;sFkhy O;kikjh
vkf.k LFkkfud jfgok'kh ;kapsdMwu vusd rdzkjh izkIr >kysY;k vlwu lnj
rdzkjhackcr lgk;d iksyhl vk;qDr] vk>kn eSnku foHkkx] eqacbZ ;kauh
dsysY;k pkSd'khe/;s lacaf/krkaps tkctckr ?ksrysys vkgsr o R;kauh dsysY;k
xksiuh; pkSd'khe/;s [kkyhy ckch fun'kZukl vkysY;k vkgsr-
1½ rdzkjnkjkaP;k rdzkjhe/;s iw.kZr% rF; ulys rjh ns[khy dkgh
izek.kkr oLrqfLFkrh [kjh vkgs-
SQ Pathan 8/27
9 1677.12.doc
2½ rdzkjnkjkaP;k vkjksikuqlkj voS/k LVWky clfo.;kdjhrk xSjoktoh
iS'kkph ekx.kh dsysyh vlwu rh dkgh izek.kkr iw.kZ dsysyh vlY;kus l/;k
eqlkfQj[kkU;kr iqohZizek.ksp voS/k LVkWy clfoysys vkgsr-
3½ QaVq'k ukokph efgyk oiksfu ;kaP;korhus iSls xksGk djrs ;kl
nqtksjk ns.kkjs dks.khgh leksj vkysys ukgh- ijarq lnj efgyk iksyhl Bk.;kl
fu;fer oiksfUk d{kkr cjkp dkG Fkkacysyh vlrs-
4½ rdzkjnkjkaP;k vkjksikizek.ks eqlkfQj [email protected] ;sFks xSjgsrwus jsM
dj.ks o [email protected] iksyhl igkjk Bso.ks 41¼M½ izek.ks eky
rkC;kr ?ks.ks] dLVe vf/kdk&;kauk cksyko.ks o dkgh izek.kkr xSj gsrw lk/;
>kY;kl fdjdksG ekykoj dkjokbZ dj.ks-
5½ ojhy dkjokbZeqGs eqlkQhj[kkuk ;sFkhy O;kik&;ke/;s vlarks"kkph
Hkkouk fuekZ.k gksowu eksB;k Lo:ikar vkanksyu gksowu dk;nk o lqO;oLFkspk
iz'u fuekZ.k gksowu iksyhl [kkR;kP;k fo'oklkbZrsl ck/kk ;s.;kph 'kD;rk
ukdkjrk ;sr ukgh-
4- Jh- latho Hkxoku dksdhG] ofj"B iksyhl fujh{kd] ek-j-
vka- ekxZ iksyhl Bk.ks] eqacbZ gs vkiY;k gkrk[kkyhy vf/kdk&;ka'kh
vjsjkohus okxrkr- R;kauh iksyhl Bk.;krhy vf/kdk&;kae/;s nqQGh fuekZ.k
dsysyh vkgs- iksyhl Bk.;kr ,[kk|k fno'kh [kkR;koj ukeq"dh vks<osy
vlk izlax ?kMw 'kdrks- ek-j-vka- ekxZ iksyhl Bk.;kl nk[ky xqUg;kpk
rikl ;ksX; jhrhus djhr ukghr- ;kckcr iksmvk ;kauh dsysY;k lwpukaph
Jh- dksdhG] oiksfu gs iwrZrk djhr ukghr-
5- ,[kk|k yksdizfrfu/khauh oiksfu- dksdhG ;kauk Qksu dsY;kl
o R;keqGs R;kaP;k xSjgsrwus vMFkGs fuekZ.k o R;kaP;koj dkgh dkjokbZ gksbZy
v'kh fHkrh fuekZ.k >kY;kl rs Bk.ks nSuafnuhe/;s uksanh djrkr- rlsp
ofj"Bkauk yksdizfrfu/khckcr xksiuh; vgoky ikBforkr-
6- oiksfu Jh- dksdhG] ;kaph R;kaP;k fo:/nP;k rdzkjho:u ek-
j-vka- ekxZ iks- Bk.ks eqacbZ ;sFkwu l'kL= iksyhl y&foHkkx] eqacbZ ;sFks
¼vdk;Zdkjh inkr½ o oiksfu Jh- inekdj xkslkoh tqbZdj ;kapk iz'kkldh;
dkj.kkLro xqUgs 'kk[kk] xq-v-fo-] eqacbZ ;sFkwu ek-j-vka- ekxZ iks-Bk.ks eqacbZ
¼Jh- dkdhG ;kaP;k cnyheqGs fjDr gks.kk&;k tkxsoj½ cnyh izLrkokl
iksyhl vkLFkkiuk eaMGkus ekU;rk fnyh vlY;kps iksyhl vk;qDr] eqacbZ
;kauh fn- 22-10-2010 P;k i=kr ueqn dsys vlwu R;kapk lsokri'khy
ikBfoyk vkgs-
SQ Pathan 9/27
10 1677.12.doc
7- iksyhl vk;qDr] eqacbZ ;kauh f'kQkjl dsY;kizek.ks oiksfu Jh-
dksdhG o oiksfUk Jh- tqbZdj ;kaP;k cnyh izLrkokl ekU;rk ns.;kr ;koh fdaok
dls ;kckcr vkns'kkFkZ lnj] cnyh izLrkokl ekU;rk |ko;kph >kY;kl lnjph
cnyh gh [email protected]/;ko/kh vlY;kus 'kkldh; deZpk&;kaP;k cnY;kaps fofu;e
o 'kkldh; drZO; ikj ikMrkuk gks.kk&;k foyackl izfrca/k vf/kfu;e 2005
e/khy dye dz- 4¼4½¼nksu½ o 4¼5½ uqlkj cnyh dj.kk&;k l{ke izkf/kdk&;kP;k
yxr ofj"Bkaph Eg.ktsp ;kizdj.kh ek- eq[;ea=h ;kaph ekU;rk vko';d vkgs-
rjh mijksDr izLrko ek- eq[;ea=h ;kaP;k ekU;rslkBh lknj-
The respondents have also countered the argument of the petitioner
that no reason has been recorded in the impugned order including that the
reason noted in the impugned transfer order was not sufficient for invoking
powers under Section 4(5) of the Act of 2005. The respondents contend
that no new ground has been mentioned in the reply affidavit. According to
the Respondents, the argument of the petitioner is founded on complete
misreading of the averments contained in Paragraph 27 of the reply
affidavit filed before the Tribunal. For, it reiterates the reason already
recorded in the transfer order and not an attempt to justify the impugned
order on some other ground at all. According to the Respondents, there was
no infirmity in the procedure followed before issuance of the impugned
order against the petitioner, which warrants interference. With regard to the
argument of the petitioner about impugned judgment of the Tribunal is bad
on account of principle of Corum Non Judice, the respondents contend that
SQ Pathan 10/27
11 1677.12.doc
even this argument cannot be countenanced as, no objection was taken by
the petitioner during the hearing of the matter before the non judicial
member of the Tribunal, nor the petitioner has challenged the validity of the
Rules framed in exercise of powers under the Administrative Tribunals Act,
permitting the non judicial member to decide the proceedings. According
to the Respondents, the Petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of
merits.
5.
Having considered the rival submissions, we have no hesitation in
taking the view that if the petitioner fails to substantiate his argument that
the impugned communications purporting to be transfer order have been
issued without following the procedure established by law, in particular,
Section 4(4) proviso (ii) and 4(5) of the Act of 2005, it may not be
necessary for us to examine any other contention. Indeed, the basis for
answering the said contention which we may adopt, may not have been
specifically considered by the Tribunal. But, that would not preclude the
High Court while entertaining challenge of this nature to affirm the ultimate
conclusion reached by the Court or Tribunal of first instance on that basis.
In fact, the grievance about non-compliance of procedural requirement
SQ Pathan 11/27
12 1677.12.doc
under Section 4(4) Proviso (ii) and 4(5) of the Act of 2005 was pointedly
raised before the Tribunal and has been answered by the Tribunal against
the petitioner. We may, therefore, straightaway examine the said grievance.
Before that, we would deem it apposite to reproduce the provision.
"4. (1) No Government Servant shall ordinarily be transferred unless he
has completed his tenure of posting as provided in section 3.
(2) The competent authority shall prepare every year in the month of
January, a list of Government servants due for transfer, in the month of
April and May in the year.
(3) Transfer list prepared by the respective competent authority under
sub-section (2) for Group A Officers specified in entries (a) and (b) of
the table under section 6 shall be finalised by the Chief Minister or the
concerned Minister, as the case may be, in consultation with the Chief
Secretary or concerned Secretary of the Department, as the case may
be :
Provided that, any dispute in the matter of such transfers shall be
decided by the Chief Minister in consultation with the Chief Secretary.
(4) The transfers of Government servants shall ordinarily be made only
once in a year in the month of April or May:
Provided that, transfer may be made any time in the year in the
circumstances as specified below, namely :--
(i) to the newly created post or to the posts which become vacant
due to retirement, promotion, resignation, reversion,
reinstatement, consequential vacancy on account of transfer or on
return from leave;
(ii) where the competent authority is satisfied that the transfer is
essential due to exceptional circumstances or special reasons,
SQ Pathan 12/27
13 1677.12.doc
after recording the same in writing and with the prior approval of
the next higher authority.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 or this section, the
competent authority may, in special cases, after recording reasons in
writing and with the prior permission of the immediately preceding
Competent Transferring Authority mentioned in the table of section 6,
transfer a Government servant before completion of his tenure of post."
6. For considering this question, we would assume that the impugned
communications dated 7th February, 2011 Exhibit `N' and 5th April, 2011,
read with 26th January, 2011, are in the nature of transfer order within the
meaning of Act of 2005. It is indisputable that although Section 3
envisages tenure posting and tenure transfer not to be less than three years
on a given post, however, that does not extricate the Competent Authority
from transferring the Government servants in the State service including the
All India Service Officers of Maharashtra Cadre, to transfer them in special
cases before completion of tenure posting. That power is inherent in the
Appropriate Authority and can be exercised against the Government
servants to transfer them being incidence of service, wherever permissible,
if the administrative exigency so warrants. This position is restated in
Section 4(4)(ii) and 4(5) of the Act of 2005.
SQ Pathan 13/27
14 1677.12.doc
7. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 predicates that the transfers of
Government servants shall ordinarily be made only once a year in the
month of April or May. Clause (ii) of proviso under sub-section (4),
enables the Competent Authority, when satisfied that the transfer is
essential due to exceptional circumstances or special reasons, after
recording the same in writing and with the prior approval of the next higher
Authority, to transfer the concerned Government servant even before the
normal period of month of April or May. The quintessence for exercising
that power is the satisfaction of the Competent Authority that the transfer is
necessitated due to exceptional circumstances or special reasons which it
has to record in writing and before giving effect thereto, prior approval of
the next higher Authority has to be obtained. Similarly, sub-section (5) of
Section 4 opens with a non-obstante clause. It envisages that
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 or Section 4, as the case
may be, the Competent Authority has power to transfer a Government
servant before completion of his tenure posting in special cases. That can
be done after recording reasons in writing and with the prior permission of
the immediately preceding Competent Transferring Authority mentioned in
the table of Section 6. Thus, the question to be considered is: whether the
SQ Pathan 14/27
15 1677.12.doc
present case falls within the category of special case or case involving
exceptional circumstances or special reasons.
8. Let us, therefore, turn to the impugned communication. The letter
dated 7th February, 2011, mentions that the State Government has approved
the proposal to transfer the petitioner because of complaints received
against him whilst working in M.R.A. Marg Police Station. It further states
that the communication of the Government dated 24th January, 2011
incorrectly mentions "Amravati City" instead of "L-Division". Therefore,
instead of `Amravati City', it should read as "Armed Police L-Division,
Mumbai" and the transfer order of Amravati City be cancelled and fresh
order be issued and forwarded to the State Government forthwith.
Considering the above, it is not a case of two transfer orders issued against
the petitioner in quick succession, as is contended. Rather, it is a case of
issuing corrigendum or correction of the transfer order dated 26.1.2014
which in turn, was issued on the basis of State Government communication
dated 24th January, 2011. This transfer was based on the proposal mooted by
the Competent Authority which has been considered by the Authorities at
different levels [Section Officer, Under Secretary, Principal Secretary
SQ Pathan 15/27
16 1677.12.doc
(Appeals & Security), Minister (Home)], right upto the Chief Minister.
After approval of the proposal by all these Authorities, it was decided to
transfer the petitioner from M.R.A. Marg Police Station to Armed Police L-
Division within Mumbai. The statutory authorities having applied
themselves to the issues mentioned in the proposal and having thought it
appropriate to transfer the petitioner as a special case and in exceptional
circumstances, it would certainly qualify the test laid down in Section 4(4)
proviso (ii) and/or 4(5) of the Act. That is the subjective satisfaction of the
concerned authorities. Sufficiency of the material considered by the
Authorities for recording their satisfaction, cannot be the basis for the
Court to doubt their wisdom. The first requirement, be it under clause (ii)
in proviso to section 4(4) or for that matter, section 4(5), in our opinion, has
been fulfilled in the fact situation of the present case. It is nobody's case
that the transfer order passed against the petitioner has not been issued by
the Competent Authority.
9. The next requirement is of recording of reasons by the concerned
Authority. The tenor of the proposal and the manner in which it has been
couched, itself manifests the reasons which necessitated transfer of the
SQ Pathan 16/27
17 1677.12.doc
petitioner from M.R.A. Marg Police Station to some other post, albeit
within Mumbai. The fact that the highest authority has merely made
endorsement of "proposal approved" on the proposal, does not mean that
there is non-compliance of the requirement of recording reasons in writing.
If the superior authorities and in particular, the Chief Minister, having made
the endorsement "proposal approved", it presupposes that he agreed with
every aspect mentioned in the proposal. If he were to disagree with any of
the fact or reason stated in the proposal, he would have certainly made
noting in that behalf. Even if he wanted to add further fact or reason in
addition to the ones mentioned in the proposal, he would have made a
noting in that behalf. Suffice it to observe that the fact that the Chief
Minister, who is the final authority, having merely made endorsement
"proposal approved", in no way, results in non-compliance of the
requirement of recording reasons in writing as predicated in section 4(5) or
for that matter section 4(4) proviso (ii) of the Act.
10. The last requirement under these provisions, is that, the transfer
order may be passed only with the prior approval of the next higher
authority or with prior permission of the immediately preceding Competent
SQ Pathan 17/27
18 1677.12.doc
Transferring Authority (CTA) mentioned in the table of section 6, as the
case may be. In the present case, it is indisputable that the prior approval of
the concerned Authority has been obtained before issuing the transfer
order against the petitioner. A priori, it would necessarily follow that there
is no infraction either of section 4(4) proviso (ii) or section 4(5) of the Act,
in any manner. On this finding, enquiry into other issues will be wholly
unnecessary and the challenge to the impugned transfer order must fail.
11.
Counsel for the petitioner was at pains to persuade us to take the view
that the independent satisfaction has not been recorded by the specified
Competent Authority. We have already dealt with this aspect hitherto and
for the same reason, that argument will have to be negated. He also
vehemently argued that no reason is recorded in the communication dated
7.2.2011 purported to be the impugned transfer order. We have already
adverted to the contents of the said communication at exhibit-N. It
essentially highlights that due to clerical error, incorrect place of posting of
the petitioner was mentioned in the State Government communication dated
24.1.2011 for which reason, the transfer order issued against the petitioner
on the basis of the said communication be cancelled and a fresh transfer
SQ Pathan 18/27
19 1677.12.doc
order be passed against the petitioner to transfer him from M.R.A. Marg
Police Station to Armed Police L-Division on non-executive post within
Mumbai. On the basis of this communication, the transfer order is passed
which records reason for transfer as "for administrative reason". The
proposal for transfer of petitioner mooted at the different levels right upto
the Chief Minister also mentions the same reason for transferring the
petitioner to another post from M.R.A. Marg Police Station. Thus, it is not
a case of no reason recorded at all. The reason is found in the order itself.
The fact that the reason noted as "for administrative reason", can be no less
an exceptional circumstance or special reason or for that matter, as a special
case. Whether the reason which weighed with the Authority for arriving at
subjective satisfaction would qualify it as exceptional circumstance or
special reason or a special case, would depend on facts of each case. It is
not possible to computerise or reduce into immutable formulae the diverse
considerations on the basis of which this discretion must be exercised.
Administrative reason, as aforesaid, is no less special reason or exceptional
exigency to be redressed.
12. Accordingly, we find no merits in the argument that the transfer
SQ Pathan 19/27
20 1677.12.doc
order issued against the petitioner is bereft of any reason. Moreover, the
reason recorded as "for administrative reason" qualifies the criterion
specified under Section 4(4) proviso (ii) and 4(5) of the Act.
13. That takes us to the argument of the petitioner that the respondents
have attempted to support the impugned transfer order on other additional
reasons not referred to in the order itself. For that, reliance has been placed
on portion of paragraph 27 of the affidavit filed before the Tribunal. The
same reads thus:
"It is apparent from the said report that the oral functioning of the
applicant as a Sr.Police Inspector at M.R.A. Marg Police Station,
Mumbai, the applicant has levelled the allegations against the
superior officers. However, the functioning of the applicant may
not be ignored since both the superior officers have submitted the
adverse reports of the applicant. Therefore, after receipt of the
report of the superior officers the Commissioner of Police was
satisfied that it was a fit case to transfer the applicant from M.R.A.
Marg Police Stn. By invoking the provisions of Sec.4(4)(ii) and 4(5)
of the Transfer Act."
14. In our opinion, the respondents are justified in contending that the
argument of the petitioner is founded on misinformation and misreading of
the reply affidavit. The above quoted portion of the reply affidavit cannot
be read out of context. The reply affidavit will have to be read as a whole.
SQ Pathan 20/27
21 1677.12.doc
If so read, it restates the reason already recorded in the transfer order
namely; it was essentially to transfer the petitioner "for administrative
reason". That reason is not only noticed in the transfer order but also in the
proposal. Thus, the stand taken in the reply affidavit is no different than the
reason which weighed with the concerned Authorities to direct transfer of
the petitioner. Accordingly, reliance placed on the exposition in the case of
Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi (supra) is of no avail in the fact situation of this
case.
15. To get over this position, counsel for the petitioner submitted that it
was not open to the respondents to rely on the reasons stated in the proposal
on the basis of which impugned transfer order came to be passed. To
buttress this contention, reliance is placed on exposition in paragraph 21 of
the reported decision which reads thus:
"A statutory authority, as is well known, when it acts in terms of
a statute, is bound by its action. It cannot supplement or supplant the
reason later on by way of affidavit. Furthermore, we find that apart from
the fact that no such question had been raised by the Commissioner in
his letter dated 9-5-2011, the reasons sought to be assigned in the
counter-affidavit either are unjustified or irrelevant. A statutory
committee should not be denied access to the documents to which it is
entitled to, even according to the State Government."
SQ Pathan 21/27
22 1677.12.doc
16. For the reasons already recorded by us hitherto, this argument will
have to be stated to be rejected. For, it has been held that the transfer order
passed against the petitioner, in no uncertain terms, records the reason for
mid-term transfer of the petitioner "for administrative reasons". It is not a
case of no reason recorded in the transfer order at all. Further, the
Department would be justified in supporting its administrative action on the
basis of contemporaneous office record such as the proposal for transferring
the petitioner which preceded the issuance of transfer order in question. If,
even that document did not contain the reason required to be noted for the
purpose of Section 4(4) proviso (ii) or 4(5), then, it would be a different
matter. In that case, it may not be possible for the Department to
supplement or supplant the reason later on by way of affidavit. Suffice it to
observe that the argument under consideration is devoid of merits.
17. The next argument of the petitioner which needs consideration, is
that, the impugned transfer order was punitive transfer and could not have
been passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner. No doubt, the
proposal refers to several instances which warranted the transfer of the
SQ Pathan 22/27
23 1677.12.doc
petitioner from the post held by him in M.R.A. Marg Police Station. But
the transfer order on the face of it, does not mention those instances - but
only records the necessity of transfer of the petitioner for administrative
reasons. Considering the background in which the proposal was considered
by the Authorities upto the highest level in the State Government, as the
inquiry was required in respect of adverse matters reported against the
petitioner, it was thought appropriate to transfer the petitioner from the
present post to facilitate a fair and independent inquiry. Moreover, merely
because the impugned order results in transfer of the petitioner on that
basis, that does not per se result in punitive transfer of the petitioner,
considering the fact that the petitioner has been transferred within Mumbai
City only. It is not a case where the petitioner has been transferred to some
remote and inaccessible part of Maharashtra by way of punishment.
Suffice it to observe that the transfer was necessitated for administrative
reasons and in the facts of the present case, it cannot be considered as
punitive transfer at all. Notably, the proposal against the petitioner has
been routed through the Police Establishment Board constituted under
Government Resolution dated 25th July, 2008 and has been approved at the
highest level in the Government. Accordingly, it cannot be considered as a
SQ Pathan 23/27
24 1677.12.doc
punitive transfer, as is contended. In view of this finding, it may not be
necessary to deal with the other contentions of the petitioner - that the
proposal ought to have been placed before the Police Complaints Authority
constituted under another Government Resolution dated 25 th July, 2008. In
that, we are in agreement with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal, that
the purpose of constituting the two boards (i.e. Police Establishment Board
and State Police Complaint Authority), in terms of the directions given by
the Apex Court in Prakash Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) &
Ors.4, is markedly different. The proposal regarding transfer of police
officer, even if initiated in the background of complaints received against
him, is not required to be placed before the Police Complaints Authority.
The scope of powers of the State Police Complaints Authority has been
delineated in paragraph 2 of the concerned Government Resolution dated
25th July, 2008. The same reads thus:
"The State Police Complaints Authority shall exercise powers and
perform functions as under:
i) look into the complaints against police officers of the rank
of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Asst. Commissioner of Police and
above in respect of misconduct, dereliction of duty, misuse of power,
corruption, negligence or any matter which may be referred to it by the
State Government.
4 (2006) 8 SCC 1
SQ Pathan 24/27
25 1677.12.doc
ii) require any person to furnish information on such points
or matters as in the opinion of the authority may be useful for or
relevant to the subject matter of enquiry;
iii) make appropriate recommendations to the State
Government on any case enquired into it;"
18. On the other hand, the scope of powers of the Police Establishment
Board have been delineated in paragraph 1(A)(B) of the concerned
Government Resolution of the same date, i.e. 25th July, 2008, which reads
thus:-
"1 A. The Police Establishment Board at the State level shall exercise
powers and perform functions as follows:
a) The Board shall decide all transfers, postings, promotions
and other service related matters of officials of and below the rank of
Inspector of Police. However, transfers will be decided within the
purview of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of
Transfer and Prevention of Delay in discharge of duties Act, 2005;
b) The Board shall be authorized to make appropriate
recommendations to the State Government regarding postings and
transfers of officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police and State Government shall give due weightage to those
recommendations;
c) The Board shall also function as a forum of appeal for
disposing of representations from officers of and below the rank of
Police Inspector regarding their promotions, transfer, disciplinary
proceedings or their being subject to illegal or irregular orders subject
to the provisions of further appeal to Government as per existing rules
and operation;
d) The Board shall be authorised to make appropriate
recommendations to the State Government, on the grievance received
from the Police officers of and above the rank of Dy. S. P. regarding
their promotions, disciplinary proceeding and other service matters
after analysing the same as per the prevailing rules and regulations;
SQ Pathan 25/27
26 1677.12.doc
e) The Board shall generally review the functioning of the
State Police;
f) The Board shall exercise such other functions as may be
assigned to it by the State Government from time to time.
1 (B). The State Government may modify any of the decisions
of the Board after recording its reasons for doing so."
(emphasis supplied)
19. Thus understood, not placing the proposal before the State Police
Complaints Authority would not and cannot vitiate the decision making
process resorted to in the fact situation of this case.
20. Considering the above, we have no hesitation in taking the view that
the Impugned transfer order issued against the petitioner, for transferring
him from M. R. A. Marg Police Station to Arms Police, L-Division is just,
proper and legitimate. No infirmity has been noticed in the decision
making process or in the competence of the Authority taking such decision,
as a result of which, the impugned order has been issued.
21. Thus, we uphold the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the
Original Application filed by the petitioner to challenge the said transfer
order deserved to be dismissed. Having said this, it is not necessary for us
SQ Pathan 26/27
27 1677.12.doc
to burden our Judgment with the argument that the decision of the Tribunal,
which is challenged in the present Petition, suffers from the vice of Corum
Non Judice.
22. While parting, we make it clear that we have upheld the conclusion
reached by the Tribunal in dismissing the Original Application for reasons
recorded in this Judgment alone. In other words, we are not burdening this
Judgment in considering the infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal,
pointed out to us on other matters.
23. Accordingly, this Petition fails. The same is dismissed.
( SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)
SQ Pathan 27/27
