Rajveer Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13732 MP

                                     1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                         ON THE 18th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                    WRIT PETITION No. 23852 of 2022

        BETWEEN:-
        RAJVEER SINGH GURJAR S/O LATE SHRI
        SHANKAR SINGH, AGE 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        SERVICE, R/O HATANA PLAZA, GOHAD
        CHAURAHA,   GOHAD      DISTRICT   BHIND
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI NAKUL KHEDKAR - ADVOCATE)

        AND
1.      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
        THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
        DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      DIRECTOR, LOK ABHIYOJN, SANCHANALAY,
        BHADBHADA ROAD, NEAR POLICE HOUSING
        BUILDING, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      JILA ABHIYOJNA ADHIKARI, DISTRICT COURT
        (PREMISES) BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

(i) That the impugned order Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed vis-a-vis petitioner.

(ii) That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

(iii) Costs of this petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer (ADPO) and at present he is posted at Bhind. The petitioner was appointed by order dated 22.2.2012 and thereafter in the year 2018 he was transferred to Lahar which is just 50 Kms. away from District Bhind.

It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter within a period of four years, he has been transferred frequently for more than seven times. While he was posted at Lahar, District Bhind he was placed under suspension by order dated 23.10.2019 as he was frequently making calls and was making whatsapp messages to the Director, Public Prosecution, State of M.P. and his headquarters was fixed at Shivpuri. Thereafter, by order dated 10.6.2020 his suspension order was revoked and he was posted at Datia. Within five months thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to his original place of posting i.e. District Prosecution Officer (DPO), Bhind and, accordingly, he submitted his joining on 24.11.2020. [Thus, it is clear that the transfer of the petitioner from Datia to Bhind was frequent in nature but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he happily carried out the said transfer order]. Thereafter, by order dated 25.11.2020, the petitioner was directed to work at Lahar, District Bhind. Thereafter, by order dated 31.8.2021, the petitioner was again transferred back to the Office of DPO, Bhind. Thereafter, within three months, the petitioner was

transferred to Gohad District Bhind and it is submitted that thereafter the petitioner was transferred back to the Office of DPO, Bhind and now by the impugned order dated 04.10.2022 he has been transferred to Rewa on administrative exigency. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is a victim of frequent transfer and whenever he was transferred out of Bhind may be to a nearer place like Gohad or Lahar, he was immediately transferred back to Bhind and thus the order in question suffers from mala fides and in absence of any reason for transfer, the transfer of the petitioner in the name of administrative exigency is bad in law.

It is further submitted that an administrative exigency is not a magic word and unless and until reasons are assigned it cannot be said that the transfer is in the administrative exigency.

To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dayaram vs. Raghunath reported in (2007) 11 SCC 241 and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radheshyam Mandloi vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2021 (3) MPLJ 580.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is incorrect to say that the petitioner is a victim of frequent transfer. Whenever he was transferred out of DPO Office, Bhind he

successfully came back to the Office of DPO, Bhind. During the period of his suspension, he was attached in Shivpuri and after revocation of his suspension order, he was posted at Datia and within five months of his posting, he was transferred back to DPO Office, Bhind, which was happily carried out by him. Thereafter, he was transferred to Tehsil Lahar District Bhind which is just 50 kms. away from City Bhind, but again he was transferred back to the office of

DPO Bhind. Thereafter again he was transferred back to Lahar and from there he went to Gohad and again successfully came back to DPO Office, Bhind and, therefore, every time whenever he was transferred from the office of DPO Bhind, he successfully came back to the said office. Thus, it is clear that in fact, the petitioner is not a victim of frequent transfer order. For the first time, the petitioner is being transferred out of District Bhind. Transfer is an exigency of service and no one can claim that he should be posted at a particular place.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

When the petitioner was posted in Tehsil Lahar District Bhind, he was continuously making calls and sending whatsapp messages to Director, Public Prosecution, Bhopal and, accordingly, he was placed under suspension and ultimately the punishment of censure has been imposed. Why the petitioner was frequently calling Director, Public Prosecution and why he was sending whatsapp messages to him is not known to anyone and even the counsel for the petitioner is unable to disclose the reasons for making frequent calls to Director, Public Prosecution or sending whatsapp messages to him.

Be that whatever it may.

From the details of various transfer orders issued against the petitioner, it is clear that whenever the petitioner was transferred from the office of DPO Bhind, he successfully came back and executed the orders happily. Moving to a nearby Tehsil within the district and again coming back to the office of DPO Bhind cannot be said to be a frequent transfer order. After his transfer from Datia on 25.11.2020, the petitioner has been transferred for the first time out of district Bhind. The petitioner had joined services, which is transferable in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh.

It is not the case of the petitioner that one of the service conditions was that his post is non-transferable or transferable within the district. Once the petitioner has joined the services knowing to the fact that he can be transferred to any District in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh, then he cannot pressurize the employer to keep him in the office of DPO Bhind only. No mala fides have been alleged. It is true that the word “administrative exigency†is not a magic word but unless and until some mala fides or arbitrary action on the part of the respondent is pointed out, assigning of a reason by the employer is not warranted. Furthermore, this Court has already held that the transfer of the petitioner cannot be said to be frequent in nature because whenever he was transferred to a different Tehsil of District Bhind, he successfully came back to the office of DPO Bhind and he never challenged the transfer by which he was transferred back to the office of DPO, Bhind.

Be that whatever it may, At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that his daughter is studying in Maharaja Surajmal Brij University, Dholpur (Rajasthan) and in case, if the petitioner is transferred to Rewa, then the studies of his daughter would get adversely affected.

So far as the studies of the daughter of the petitioner is concerned, it is clear from the admit card that the daughter of the petitioner is the student of Part-V of B.A. B.Ed. course. Dholpur is quite away from Bhind.

At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in fact, the hometown of the petitioner is Dholpur. Therefore, the daughter of the petitioner must be residing in her own house and even when the petitioner was posted in Bhind, the daughter of the petitioner was prosecuting her studies by staying at Dholpur. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner cannot be said to be

a mid-term transfer resulting in adverse effect on the studies of his daughter.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he is not interested to stay back in the office of DPO, Bhind but whenever he was transferred from the office of DPO Bhind, he was transferred back to the said office within short span which has adversely affected his even tempo and this is against the principle of stability, which is necessary for the effective working of a Government employee.

The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. There should be some sense of stability, so that the Government employee can discharge his duty without any apprehension of transfer.

Under these circumstances, it is expected that now the State shall not disturb the petitioner from District Rewa unless and until he completes his regular tenure of three years.

With aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (alok)

ALOK KUMAR 2022.10.18 18:15:39 +05'30'