Matloob Ur Rahman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6639 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Matloob Ur Rahman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                            1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                                       BEFORE

               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 25864 of 2023

       BETWEEN:-

       MATLOOB UR RAHMAN KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL
       LATIF KHAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION: SERVICE PRESENTLY POSTED AT
       DISTRICT PROSECUTION OFFICER, DISTRICT
       ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                    .....PETITIONER

       (BY SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

       AND

1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
       HOME GOVT. OF M.P., VALLABH BHAWAN,
       BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.     UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
       GOVT. OF M.P., VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
       (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.     DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, POLICE HOUSING
       CAMPUS BHADBHADA ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
       PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS

       (BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
       GENERAL AND SHRI H.K. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR
       INTERVENER)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reserved on                                  :          16-02-2024
        Delivered on                                 :           05-03-2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2

      This petition having been heard and reserved for orders coming on for
pronouncement this day, delivered the following:-
                                  ORDER

1. The instant petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being crestfallen by order dated 03-10-2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Ashoknagar to Sagar on administrative ground.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner who is working as District Prosecution Officer has been transferred by respondent No.2 from the post of District Prosecution Officer, Ashoknagar to Jawaharlal Nehru Police Academy, Sagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers and he suffered four transfers between the period 24-11-2020 to 03-10-2023. It is further submitted that petitioner is District Prosecution Officer and the place where he has been transferred is an Academy, therefore, he is unable to discharge his duties at the transferred place. Petitioner is an excellent District Prosecution Officer and many a times his work has been appreciated by the higher authorities. Thus, prayed for quashing of impugned order Annexure P/1.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the submission on the ground that transfer is incident of service. Transfer of petitioner is based on complaints received against him, therefore, in order to smooth functioning, Administrative Exigency exists in the case in hand. Thus, prayed for dismissal of

writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

5. Transfer is an incident of service. No one much less petitioner has any vested right to be posted at a particular place of posting. It is well settled in law that employer is the best judge to organize its work force and it is also well settled in law that a transfer order cannot be subjected to judicial review unless and until same is found to be influenced by mala fide or arbitrary exercise of powers which petitioner fails to do so. Concept of equality as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, has no application to the cases of transfers.

6. From the arguments of counsel for the parties, it appears that petitioner was transferred vide order dated 24-11-2020 from District Prosecution Officer, Betul to Office of Directorate Prosecution, Bhopal and from Directorate Prosecution, Bhopal he was transferred to Jhabua vide order dated 31-08-2021. After 14 months he was transferred from Jhabua to Ashoknagar indicating that transfer is made on personal expenses but as per the petitioner it was not. Thereafter, he remained at Ashoknagar for a year and immediately thereafter he has been been transferred to Jawaharlal Nehru Police Academy, Sagar (JNPA).

7. Short reply filed by the respondents/State indicates that 12 complaints were submitted by various persons including Senior Police Officers and Bar Members of Bar Association about the conduct of petitioner which are also filed as Annexure R/1 colly. Therefore, it appears that because of conduct of petitioner, his

transfer is being made. Thus, it is an Administrative Exigency on which transfer has been made.

8. In the return filed by the respondents/State, it has been specifically mentioned that one post of teaching faculty of law subject (DPO) is vacant at JNPA, Sagar, therefore, to fulfill the said post, he has been sent there.

9. Counsel for the respondents/State and intervener filed certain documents in which one proceeding of a criminal case dated 17- 01-2023 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar has been annexed in which certain observations have been made by the concerned Trial Judge about the conduct of petitioner. Since proceedings are part of public record, therefore, these documents are taken into consideration. Some other documents also refer conduct of petitioner and certain allegations against him.

10. Earlier on the ground of frequent transfer, stay was granted by this Court vide order dated 09-10-2023 but when all the documents are brought before this Court then it appears that since the transfer is based on conduct of petitioner, therefore, no case for interference is made out.

11. Considering the judgments passed by the Apex Court from time to time in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board and another Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, (1989) 2 SCC 602, Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, Rajendra Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178, S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 9 SCC 583 and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P., 2015 (4) MPLJ

480, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the transfer order.

12. Scope of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the case of transfer is very limited, except on the ground of malafide or violation of any statutory provision. Such ingredients are absent in the case in hand rather Administrative Exigency persuaded the respondents to pass the transfer order of petitioner.

13. In view of the aforesaid, the petition preferred by the petitioner sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Interim order of stay over the transfer order of petitioner granted by this Court stands set aside.

14. Petition stands dismissed.

                                                     (ANAND PATHAK)
Anil*                                                    JUDGE

              ANIL KUMAR
              CHAURASIYA
              2024.03.05
              20:19:40
              +05'30'