Satish Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5173 MP

                              1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      WP-17323-2021
            Satish Verma Vs. State of MP and ors.

Gwalior, Dated : 08.09.2021

      Shri G.S. Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Jitesh Sharma, Counsel for the State.

      This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed against the impugned order dated 31.08.2021, by which

the petitioner has been transferred from Radhogarh District Guna to

Mandsore District Mandsore.

      It is the case of the petitioner that he and his wife are working

on the post of ADPO. By order dated 29.01.2020 the petitioner was

transferred from Guna to Rajgarh. However, before the petitioner

could execute the transfer order, the order dated 29.01.2020 was

modified and the petitioner and his wife were directed to join at

Singrauli. It is fairly conceded that the petitioner and his wife did not

join at Singrauli and ultimately by order dated 14.02.2020, the

petitioner and his wife were attached in Morena on their own

expenses. Thereafter, by order dated 19.11.2020 it was held that the

attachment of the ADPO's was done without permission of

Competent Authority / State, therefore, the attachment of the

petitioner and his wife was erroneous and the petitioner and his wife

were directed to immediately submit their joining at Radhogarh. It is

submitted that now the petitioner has been transferred from

Radhogarh to Mandsore. It is submitted that the frequent orders of
                               2
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      WP-17323-2021
            Satish Verma Vs. State of MP and ors.

transfer which have been issued as mentioned earlier indicate that the

respondents were out and out to disturb the petitioner and his wife

with malafide intention and they submitted their joining at Morena on

attachment and within a period of 9 months, their attachment was

cancelled and now the petitioner has been transferred to Mandsore. It

is further submitted that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste

Category and he has been transferred within a period of one year.

One daughter of the petitioner is studying in Class-XI, whereas

another daughter of the petitioner is studying in Class-VI in Hindupat

Public School, Radhogarh, District Guna. The petitioner has made a

representation. However, no decision has been taken on the same.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has not pointed out the date from which he was

working in Radhogarh. The manner in which the petitioner succeeded

in getting his transfer order modified clearly indicates his influences.

By order dated 29.01.2020 he was transferred from Radhogarh to

Rajgarh, but he did not join at the transferred place and the transfer

order was modified and in place of Rajgarh, he and his wife were

transferred to Singrauli. Even then, the petitioner and his wife did not

join at Singrauli and ultimately an amended order of transfer was

issued on 14.02.2020 and the petitioner and his wife were attached in

the office of District Prosecution Officer, Morena. It appears that the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-17323-2021 Satish Verma Vs. State of MP and ors.

said order was passed without any authority of law and, accordingly,

the attachment order was recalled by order dated 19.11.2020 and the

petitioner and his wife were directed to submit their joining at their

original place of posting, i.e., Radhogarh.

Thus, it is clear that the transfer order dated 29.01.2020,

31.01.2020 cannot be said to be bad in law because the petitioner

himself did not execute the same.

So far as the attachment order dated 14.02.2020 by which the

petitioner was attached in the office of District Prosecution Officer,

Morena is concerned, the same was passed on the request of the

petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the modification of transfer orders

was at the instances of the petitioner.

Be that whatever it may.

The wife of the petitioner is also working on the post of

ADPO and she is at present posted in Radhogarh District Guna and,

therefore, in case, if the petitioner is transferred, then the studies of

his children would not get adversely effected. Furthermore, the

transfer policy does not require that the husband and wife should

always be posted at a particular place. On the contrary, it clearly

points out that if the husband and wife are posted in the same District

or Headquarters, then it does not mean that they cannot be

transferred. The petitioner is working on the post of ADPO which is a

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-17323-2021 Satish Verma Vs. State of MP and ors.

responsible post.

Under these circumstances, no case is made out warranting

interference.

At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner

that since the petitioner has made a representation, therefore, the

respondents may be directed to decide the same.

As already pointed out that whenever any transfer order was

passed, the petitioner had succeeded in getting it amended as well as

he got succeeded in getting the attachment order on his own request.

Be that whatever it may.

The petitioner has not submitted his joining at his transferred

place, therefore, no direction can be issued to decide the

representation. Furthermore, in the light of the judgment passed by

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mridul Kumar

Sharma Vs. State of MP and others reported in ILR (2015) MP

2556, the representation cannot be decided unless and until the

transferred employee submits his joining at the transferred place.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

case, no case is made out warranting interference.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2021.09.11 16:08:22 +05'30'