Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Sangeeta Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53837
1 WP-36590-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 36590 of 2025
SMT SANGEETA SINGH PARIHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Dy. A.G. for the State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 4.9.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No. 1 by which the petitioner is being sought to be transferred from Jabalpur to Dindori.
2) This is second round of litigation, inasmuch as, assailing the order dated 9.4.2025 one Shri Ajay Kumar Jain had preferred a writ petition before this Court vide W.P. No. 13680 of 2025, in which an interlocutory order dated 24.4.2025 was passed by this Court and official respondents therein were directed to appoint some unblemished officer on the post of District Prosecution Officer, Jabalpur so that working of the office is not affected. The said interlocutory order was ensued in passing of final order dated 10.7.2025 (Annexure P-8) and as per the said order, respondent No. 1 therein was directed to take decision afresh while dealing with the representation of the petitioner as well as Shri Ajay Kumar Jain. The interim arrangement was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 30-10-2025 17:55:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53837 2 WP-36590-2025 directed to be continued till final decision is taken. In the meantime the interlocutory order dated 24.4.2025 was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ appeal vide W.A. No. 1410 of 2025. The said appeal came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court after passing of final order dated 10.7.2025 in W.P. No. 13680 of 2025. Therefore, the Division Bench vide order dated 29.7.2025 passed in W.A. No. 1410 of 2025 clarified that in the process of deciding representations, the interlocutory order dated 24.4.2025 passed by the single Bench would not come in the way of the respondents. Accordingly, as per the said order, the representations were to be decided. However to the utter surprise of the petitioner, impugned order dated 4.9.2025 (Annexure P-11) has been passed by which the petitioner has been transferred to Dindori and Shri Ajay Kumar Jain has been transferred to Katni.
3) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have filed return and along with the return, note-sheets pertaining to transfer have been brought on record as Annexures R-1 and R-2. It is contended that it is a case where despite the petitioner's proposed posting at Jabalpur being acknowledged, subsequently there was sudden change of course and the petitioner has been transferred to Dindori. It is contended that a perusal of the aforesaid note-sheets shows that Note No. 60 at page No. 22 clearly reflects that while dealing with the representation it was proposed by the Authority that the petitioner be allowed to continue at Jabalpur and the matter was forwarded again. Unfortunately, suddenly, just below Note No. 66, manipulations were carried out and the petitioner's previous proposal Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 30-10-2025 17:55:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53837 3 WP-36590-2025 which was sent by the Director, Public Prosecution, Bhopal was approved wherein he had opined that the petitioner be posted at Dindori. It is further contended that even there are manipulations so far as subsequent part of the note-sheet is concerned. It is contended that the petitioner is approaching the age of superannuation, therefore, at this fag end of service, the transfer of the petitioner would cause immense hardship to the petitioner to perform duties at a different place. The daughter of the petitioner is pursuing Diploma in Computer Application and also participating in rifle shooting game. Thus, looking to the distance between Jabalpur and Dindori, entire family of the petitioner would suffer immense hardship as well as inconvenience.
4 ) Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that the decision in terms of the order passed by this Court has been taken. The said decision clearly reveals that the conduct of the petitioner while being posted at Jabalpur was unbecoming of a public servant. The conduct of the petitioner was even taken note of by this Court in previous round of litigation. Even otherwise, the transfer being an incident of service and the order of transfer of the petitioner having been issued in view of administrative exigency, no interference with the same is warranted and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5) No other pointed is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
6) Heard submissions and perused the record.
7 ) On perusal of record, it reflects that in the previous round of litigation, this Court issued following directions:-
"8. Looking to the various rival contentions about requirement of separate notifications Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 30-10-2025 17:55:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53837 4 WP-36590-2025 for posting of DPO or lack of such requirement and the post of DPO being created for 33 Districts in the State to work in the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities) in such 33 Districts so also the desirability of posting the petitioner or the respondent No.4 as DPO, Jabalpur are all such aspects which have to be considered by the competent authority of the State.
9. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is directed to take a final decision in the matter of posting of petitioner and respondent No.4 within a period of one month from today. The said authority shall also post an appropriate person as DPO, Jabalpur and as DPO in the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Jabalpur.
10. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the desirability of posting either the petitioner or the respondent No.4, or any other third person as DPO, Jabalpur or at any other place nor has expressed any opinion about their qualification or disqualification or feasibility or desirability of any person in any manner whatsoever.
11. Let the respondent No.1 take appropriate decision in the matter of posting of petitioner and respondent No.4 as per the administrative exigencies within one month. The petitioner and respondent No.4 are at liberty to submit a detailed representation citing their respective contentions before the respondent No.1 within 10 days from today.
12. Till the fresh decision is taken, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 30-10-2025 17:55:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53837 5 WP-36590-2025 interim arrangement as ordered on 24/04/2025 will continue and thereafter, the matter shall be dealt with as per the fresh decision to be taken by respondent No.1."
7 ) Pursuant to aforesaid directions, impugned order dated 4.9.2025 (Annexure P-11) has been issued by which the petitioner has been transferred to Dindori. The State in order to justify the transfer has brought on record copies of note-sheets and from perusal of the said note-sheets, it is evident that the petitioner's transfer to Dindori was proposed vide Annexure R-1 by Director, Public Prosecution. Thereafter, the said note-sheet was reduced into writing vide Annexure R-2 and from Note No. 41 onwards, there were proposals to send the petitioner to Dindori. However, suddenly, Note No. 60 was introduced and it was proposed to allow the petitioner to continue at Jabalpur only and there is a reference of representation of the petitioner dated 14.7.2025.Thereafter the note-sheet was produced before the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister approved Note No. 41 by which the petitioner was proposed to be transferred to Dindori.
8 ) The decision to transfer the petitioner to Dindori was taken in the administrative interest. Even this Court while deciding the previous petition had clearly observed in paragraph 9 that an appropriate person should be posted at the office of District Prosecution Officer, Jabalpur. It is also undisputed that in interim order also there were certain observations made by this Court regarding posting of some unblemished officer, however, the said observations were not to come in the way of the respondents to take decision on the representation as per order passed by the Division Bench in writ Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 30-10-2025 17:55:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53837 6 WP-36590-2025 appeal.
8 ) Thus taking into consideration the fact that the decision has been taken by the State for smooth functioning of the office of District Prosecution Officer and the order having been issued on account of the administrative exigency, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not require any interference.
9 ) Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE PB Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 30-10-2025 17:55:50