Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harsha Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 1735 of 2022
(HARSHA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 27-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 06/01/2022 passed by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh whereby petitioner whose name appears at Serial No. 1 in the impugned order has been transferred from the post of In-charge Director F.S.L Sagar to the post of Joint Director RFSL Bhopal.
Petitioner's contention is that said order of transfer has been effected on account of certain observations made by Gwailor Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.Cr.C No. 45232/2021 (Hariom @Chotu Raikwar (Kewat) Vs. State of M.P & others). It is submitted that impugned order is punitive in nature and petitioner has explained whole situation vide communication dated 06/01/2022 that she was not given sufficient funds for purchase of kits required for conducting DNA tests. She had consistently putforth financial demands before the competent authority ie Additional Director General of Police (Techanical) but since sanctions were not received in time, thus due to financial constraints there was lag in conducting DNA examination on the samples received from time-to-time.
Shri Atul Nema has placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench in case of K.S Verma Vs. State of M.P & ors, I.L.R. (2011) M.P 1720, wherein in a transfer matter, a finding is recorded by a Coordinate Bench that transfer order being apparently infested with malice cannot be given the stamp of approval and it is accordingly quashed.
Shri Atul Nema also submitted that he has received instructions from the petitioner that three days back she has been served with the charge sheet, therefore the impugned order being punitive in nature i.e earlier she has been subjected to transfer on certain observations made by the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court and latter on issuance of charge sheet in the matter will be within the teeth of judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench in the case of K.S Verma (supra), therefore the impugned order of transfer be quashed and petition be allowed.
Shri Amit Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer in his turn submits that he has instructions to inform this Court that Gwalior Bench while deciding M.Cr.C No. 45232/2021 has made specific Signature Not SAN Verified observation that Additional Director General of Police (Techanical) had informed the Court that Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 2022.01.28 18:17:55 IST 2 none of the communications as have been mentioned by the petitioner in her representation dated 06/01/2022 (Annexure P-3) were ever received by office of ADGP. It is submitted that sufficient budget of Rs.2.50 crores was made available to the F.S.L Sagar in the month of September, 2021 itself and petitioner actually wanted to make purchases through limited quotations/tenders method instead of following the usual process of making purchase through GEM Portal as per the Rules prescribed for purchase of various items and if any delay has been caused on account of such interest of petitioner to have made purchase through limited quotations/tenders, blame cannot be shifted on other authorities.
It has come on record that out of budge of Rs.40 lacs allotted earlier petitioner has spent only Rs.27 lacs and there is admission of pendency of purchase proceedings in regard to remaining items in other departments. It is further submitted that there is no malifide in the transfer order. There are various lapses in the conduct of the lab test at Sagar, therefore with a view to tone up these labs, in the administrative exercise of the authority, impugned order of transfer has been passed which does not call for any interference.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, firstly transfer order has been passed in exercise of an administrative authority vested in the State Government.
Secondly, ratio of law laid down in the case of K.S. Verma (supra) is not applicable. It has come on record that on 15/06/2010 petitioner therein (K.S Verma) was transferred from Betul to Bhopal in administrative exigency and within 6 months of his stay at Bhopal he was again transferred from Bhopal to Tikamgarh in administrative exigency. There was an allegation of colourable exercise of power. There were allegations that his transfer was initiated and given effect at the behest of District Head of a particular political party. There were allegations that petitioner had taken action against the Sweat meat traders, and therefore he was made scape goat on the basis of complaint lodged by the District Head of a particular political party. In this backdrop Coordinate Bench of this Court had shown indulgence and observed that transfer being apparently infested with malice cannot be given the stamp of approval, thus quashed the transfer order.
In the present case, there are no allegations of malifide. No individual against whom malice can be inferred has been impleaded as a party, therefore, in the light of law laid down in the case of N.K Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 1994 SCC (6) 98, plea of malifide is not available in the present case.
Secondly, impugned transfer has not been initiated at the instance of any individual belonging to a particular party or at the instance of some private individual but on the findings recorded by the 3 Hon'ble Gwailor Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.Cr.C No. 45232/2021 with regard to functioning of F.SL Sagar. Thus with a view to bring more efficiency in all Forensic Science Labs, if administrative decision is taken to shift certain person from a particular place to another place then that cannot be said to be colourable exercise of power. Further petitioner's counsel has admitted that petitioner was posted at Sagar in the year 2015. She has put in more than 6 years of service at Sagar, therefore, it is not a case of either frequent transfer or transfer to accommodate somebody.
It is evident from the impugned order that one of the person already working at Sagar has been given charge of In-charge Director, at Sagar. Nobody has been brought in place of present petitioner, who has been shifted to Bhopal. In view of such fact when impugned order is examined on the touch stone of plea of malifide or on the plea of transfer order being initiated on account of complaint, such plea is not available and law laid down in the case of K.S Verma (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case.
It is pertinent to mention that petitioner has to distinguish between misconduct and inefficiency. As far as misconduct is concerned, it is a subject matter of departmental enquiry for which learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner. But as far as inefficiency is concerned, it is writ large as is evident from observations made by the Gwailor Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.Cr.C No. 45232/2021 which has exhaustively discussed the conduct of petitioner in its order, therefore, the impugned transfer order issued in exercise of the administrative authorities vested in the State with a view to stream line functioning of important entity of the State namely F.S.L Sagar does not call for any indulgence.
In fact in case of K.B. Shukla Vs. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1136, the Supreme Court has pointed out :-
"The responsibility for good administration is that of the Government. The maintenance of an efficient, honest and experienced administrative service is a must for the due discharge of that responsibility. Therefore, the Government alone is best suited to judge as to the existence of exigencies of such a service, requiring appointments by transfer. The term "exigency" being understood in its widest and pregmatic sense."
Petition fails and is dismissed.
4(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE tarun