Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajkant Shukla vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2512
1 WP-1879-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1879 of 2025
BRAJKANT SHUKLA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Bagadia, Senior Advocate with Shri Vivek Phadke -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal - G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India being aggrieved by the order dated 6/11/2024 and order dated
31/12/2024 passed by respondent Nos.2&4. The petitioner has prayed for
quashment of the order dated 31/12/2024 to the extent of transfer of the
petitioner from District Dhar to Maheshwar District Khargone and also
prayed for quashment of chargesheet dated 6/11/2024.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was holding the charge
of the post of Assistant Commissioner. He was placed under suspension by
order dated 25/9/2024. The said order was challenged in W.P
No.30102/2024. During the pendency of the petition, the Appellate
Authority revoked the order of suspension by order dated 19/12/2024 and
simultaneously transferred the petitioner from the present place to his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2512
2 WP-1879-2025
substantive post of Principal to Maheshwar District Khargone. The petition
was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. However, the liberty
was granted to the petitioner to challenge his transfer after revocation of
suspension in accordance with law. After that, the present petition is filed.
3. Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the transfer
order, after revocation of suspension is nothing but a result of malafide &
bias. The order is also punitive in nature and,therefore, the same is liable to
be quashed.
4. So far the allegations of the petitioner regarding malafide or bias is
concerned, the petitioner has not made party, by name, the authority who had
issued the transfer order in personal capacity. There is no personal
allegations against the authority who has passed the impugned order. Further
the allegation of malafide is vague and equivocal. In the light of the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors.
vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 and in the case of
Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. State of U.P and Ors. reported in (2015) 1 SCC
642, the allegation of malafide is not sustainable. In the said cases it has been
held that in absence of clear allegation of malafide against a particular office
and in absence of impleading such officer "eo nominee" such allegations are
not maintainable. Even otherwise, the allegations of malafide cannot be
accepted because the order is passed by the State Government in the name of
the Governor. From perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the
Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal, considered the seriousness of
the charges against the petitioner but found that the continuation of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2512
3 WP-1879-2025
suspension of petition is not desirable. However, on administrative exigency
he has been transferred. The petitioner was holding the charge of the post of
Assistant Commissioner and the allegations of negligence have been levelled
in the capacity of Assistant Commissioner and, therefore, he was posted on
his substantive post in a different place because a departmental enquiry has
already been contemplated. Thus, in the impugned order passed by the
Appellate Authority who is competent for revocation of suspension as well
as for transfer, this Court does not find any illegality.
5. Law relating to scope of interference in the transfer matter is no
longer res integra, as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gujarat
Electricity Board and another vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, (1989) 2 SCC
602; Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 and the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.
Choudhary vs. State of M.P. and others, 2007(2) ILR MP Series 1329 , the
transfer is an incidence of service and the transfer order can only be
interfered by the Courts of law if the transfer is issued in violation of the
statutory rules or the order suffers from malafide exercise of power.
6. Accordingly, the petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
