Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anita Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2018
1 W.P.No.4464/2017
Smt. Anita Baghel
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
06.04.2018
Shri S.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Government Advocate for
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ravindra Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for respondent No.3. With consent heard finally.
Present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14-07-2017 by which the petitioner who was working as Panchayat Secretary at Gram Panchayat Kondar has been transferred to Gram Panchayat Pananer, Janpad Panchayat Narwar District Shivpuri 'on personal expenses'.
Grievance of the petitioner in short is that petitioner never sought transfer, therefore, the mode of transfer reflected in the impugned order, 'on personal expenses' is totally false. According to him, just to get rid and accommodate somebody else- respondent No.3 herein, said order has been passed.
It is further submitted that petitioner never expressed her willingness for transfer and therefore, this order passed on the basis of 'personal expenses' could not have been passed. Thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
In the case in hand, vide order dated 14-07-2017 petitioner has been shown to be transferred on the basis of personal expenses (Lo;a ds O;; ij) whereas the return of respondents reflects that it is true that she has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Kondar to Gram Panchayat Pananer but not on her request. It was typographical error but since transfer has been 2 W.P.No.4464/2017 made on administrative ground, therefore, petitioner cannot seek such interference in the matter. According to counsel for respondents, transfer is an incidence of service and cannot be interfered with.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition.
From perusal of impugned order, it appears that by the order dated 14-07-2017, petitioner has been transferred from one place to another 'on personal expenses'. It is a device by which any employee can be transferred to a different place at the whims of respondents and to give legitimacy the order may reflect 'on 'personal expenses. This appears to be guided with malafide at least to the extent of displacement of petitioner from one place to another. It is true that transfer is an incidence of service, therefore, justiciability is limited to justifiability on the anvil of malafide and violation of statutory provision. Here, transfer effected to be on personal expenses whereas; petitioner never sought transfer 'on personal expenses' and therefore, appears to be tainted with malafide. Once the petitioner has specifically alleged that she never requested for transfer 'on personal expenses' and the same was not rebutted by the respondents in specific terms; then no other inference can be drawn except the plea of malice. Therefore, mistake committed earlier needs to be corrected.
Although respondents sought to improve upon their case in return, but the same is not permissible in the light of judgment of Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405 wherein beautiful expression has been used that orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.
Therefore, impugned order dated 14-07-2017 so far as it relates to petitioner deserves to be set aside. However, 3 W.P.No.4464/2017 respondents are always at liberty to proceed with transfer of its employees as per policy and condition made by the respondents in this regard afresh.
Petition stands allowed in above terms.
(Anand Pathak)
Anil* Judge
Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Date: 2018.04.13 19:00:16 +05'30'