Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Tara Chand Arya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13423
1 WP-24061-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 24061 of 2025
DR TARA CHAND ARYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. D.P. Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Naval Kishore Gupta - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of his
transfer dated 17.06.2025, whereby he has been transferred from
Government Ayurved Dispensary, Dholagarh, District Shivpuri to
Government Ayurved Dispensary, Rajodha, District Morena, on
administrative grounds.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of transfer has been
issued with malafide intentions, inasmuch as at earlier point of time when the
petitioner was not granted the charge of the post of District Ayush Officer,
even though senior, and the same was given to the junior incumbent namely
Mr. Anil Verma vide order dated 23.12.2022, the petitioner agitated the
matter before the respondents. Subsequently also, on account of pendency of
departmental enquiry, charge of the said post was denied to him, as a result
of which he filed a writ petition which was subject matter of W.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13423
2 WP-24061-2025
No.9930/2023. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
10.05.2023, whereby respondents were directed to consider and decide the
petitioner's representation. It is also pointed out by counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner again insisted for grant of charge of the post of District
Ayush Officer and filed another writ petition before this Court being W.P.
No.18906/2025 which has been dismissed as having rendered infructuous on
account of impugned transfer. It is his submission that being aggrieved by
the petitioner's claim for grant of charge of the post of District Ayush
Officer, he has been subjected to impugned transfer. The learned counsel for
the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is suffering 45% disability
and according to the transfer policy, he is exempted from transfer.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions,
submitted that the petitioner has been posted at the present place for a long
period of time and on account of certain complaints regarding his working,
the petitioner has been transferred. He has produced certain documents to
show that the petitioner is not attending the dispensary regularly and used to
stay at Gwalior, where he is having his private clinic. He further submits that
as many as 71 incumbent have been transferred by way of impugned order
based upon the administrative exigency of the department and, therefore, the
impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. The learned
Government Advocate further submitted that even though the arguments
have been made with regard to the passing of impugned order with
malafide intention, no averment has been made in the writ petition in this
regard and also the authority against whom the malafide is alleged, is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13423
3 WP-24061-2025
impleaded in personal capacity. He further submitted that the disability of the
petitioner cannot be a ground for interference by this Court as has been held
by this Court, in the case of Sohan Singh Bhadouria Vs. State of M.P.,
passed in W.P.No.3820/2024. He therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if there
are complaints against the petitioner, respondents are required to conduct an
enquiry. It is his submission that the transfer made upon complaint, without
conducting enquiry, is illegal and liable to be set aside.
5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
6. Even though, the counsel for the petitioner made submissions with
regard to malafides in passing of the impugned order, a perusal of the
averments made in the writ petition reveals that no specific allegation has
been made against any particular authority. The petitioner has tried to
connect his impugned transfer with his claim for grant of charge of the post
of District Ayush Officer, which is going on since 2022. Further, the
petitioner has not impleaded the concerned officer against whom, he alleges
malafides, as party in the petition. The petitioner has though impleaded
respondents no.2 & 4 in their personal capacity, however, has failed to make
specific allegations against them. Thus, the allegation of malafides raised by
the petitioner are not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Another contention of the petitioner's counsel that the transfer based
upon complaint could not be made without conducting enquiry, is
considered. Since the transfer is not a punishment, the petitioner cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13423
4 WP-24061-2025
allowed to say that before transferring him on account of complaints, enquiry
should have been conducted. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed
by this Court in the case of Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others ,
passed in W.P.No.15020/2019. In the said case, this Court found on facts
that the petitioner therein has been transferred with malafide intention. A
perusal of entire order shows that the same was rendered on the peculiar
facts of the case and no law has been laid down that in every case, where the
transfer is made on account of complaint, it should be preceded with an
enquiry.
8. So far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner regarding
disability of the petitioner is concerned, the coordinate bench of this Court
has already held in the case of Sohan Singh Bhadouria (supra) that this
would not be a ground for interference in writ petition.
9. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order of transfer dated
17.06.2025 cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified.
10. Accordingly, the same is upheld. Petition is dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
