Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Amresh Naidu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327
1 W.P. No. 10226/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON 24TH OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10226 of 2026
DR. AMRESH NAIDU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
________________________________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra - Senior Advocate for the
petitioner along with Shri Rishi Tiwari - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Shreyraj Saxena - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
By way of the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court to challenge the impugned transfer order dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 2 W.P. No. 10226/2026 P/1) passed by respondent No.2. By this order, the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Senior District Registrar, Indore to Ratlam.
FACTS
2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of District Registrar on 06.05.2011. Since 21.07.2023, the petitioner had been discharging his duties as Senior District Registrar and Collector of Stamps at Indore. The petitioner asserts an impeccable service record but claims to be a victim of frequent transfers, having been transferred seven times in the last 13 years, averaging a displacement every 22 months.
3. The petitioner's wife is also a State Government servant, currently posted as Deputy Director in the Animal Husbandry Department at Indore. Furthermore, the petitioner's son is studying in Class XI at Indore. On 05.07.2025, an FIR (Crime No.103/2025) was registered against the petitioner by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Indore. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. No.29962/2025 on 28.07.2025 for its quashment. On 29.07.2025, a Division Bench of this Court heard the matter and directed the Government Advocate to call for the case-diary.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 3 W.P. No. 10226/2026
4. On 30.07.2025 at 12:04 PM, the petitioner unexpectedly received an email attaching the impugned transfer order dated 21.07.2025. Within merely two hours of receiving this e-mail, the Collector, Indore, issued an order relieving the petitioner (Annexure-P/9). Crucially, on the same day (30.07.2025), the Deputy Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, addressed a letter to the IG, Registration (Annexure-P/10), explicitly stating that the petitioner was being transferred in light of the FIR registered against him.
5. The petitioner brought this to the notice of the Division Bench in W.P. No. 29962/2025. On 01.08.2025, the Division Bench stayed the investigation and arrest in the FIR, and also stayed the transfer order, noting that "prima facie, it also appears that because the petitioner succeeded before Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court, he has been transferred mala fide."
6. Subsequently, the respondents moved an application for vacating the stay. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that prima facie the interim order passed staying the transfer order in a writ petition (criminal) without there being any pleading and relief, deserve to be vacated. He further argued that the transfer order was communicated well before the hearing of the case on 01.08.2025. The petitioner ought to have filed a separate petition impleading Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 4 W.P. No. 10226/2026 proper parties. Acceding to these procedural grounds, on 17.03.2026, the Division Bench vacated the stay on the transfer order.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned transfer order has been passed due to mala fides against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been targeted because of his honest and upright work, and the transfer is solely a punitive retaliation for the registration of the FIR, which is evident from the letter dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure- P/10).
8. It is further contended that the investigation in the aforementioned FIR has already been stayed by the Division Bench. Therefore, penalizing the petitioner by way of a transfer based on an FIR whose investigation is stayed is entirely unjustified and legally malicious.
9. The petitioner also submits that the transfer is contrary to Clause-4 of the State's Transfer Policy (Annexure-P/14), as it has been done after the lapse of the permitted window of 01.05.2025 to 30.05.2025. Furthermore, transferring the petitioner mid-session Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 5 W.P. No. 10226/2026 severely prejudices his married life, his wife's government service at Indore, and the ongoing education of his son.
10. Lastly, the counsel highlights the highly suspicious timeline. After the Division Bench sought the case diary on 29.07.2025, the petitioner was ambushed with a backdated order via email the very next day and relieved within two hours. This sequence, it is argued, conclusively demonstrates the mala fides of the respondents.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
11. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State vehemently opposes the writ petition, drawing support from the reply and the interlocutory application (I.A.) filed for the vacation of the stay in the earlier W.P. No.29962/2025. The respondents primarily raise a procedural objection, contending that in the previous round of litigation, the petitioner had exclusively challenged the FIR. They assert that the interim stay on the transfer was obtained incorrectly, as the petitioner had neither formally amended the petition to assail the transfer order nor impleaded the necessary competent authority (Deputy Secretary, Commercial Tax Department) who passed the said order.
12. Advancing their substantive defense, the respondents further submit that transfer is a fundamental incidence of service. They Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 6 W.P. No. 10226/2026 argue that a government employee holds no vested right or immunity to continue at a particular place of posting. It is contended that the State retains the absolute administrative prerogative to transfer an employee, and departures from the general transfer policy are entirely permissible when dictated by administrative exigency. Thus, they maintain that the impugned order requires no judicial interference.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire record. The law regarding judicial interference in matters of transfer is well-settled. Transfer is an incidence of service, and the scope of judicial review in such administrative matters is strictly circumscribed.
14. The parameters for interference are clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent landmark judgment of Sri Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2024, decided on 13.03.2024). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"9. In the case of Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas; (1993) 4 SCC 357, it is clearly observed by this Court that the scope of judicial review is Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 7 W.P. No. 10226/2026 only available when there is a clear violation of statutory provision or the transfer is persuaded by malafide, non-observation of executive instructions does not confer a legally enforceable right to an employee holding a transferable post. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject........"
9.1 Further, following the footsteps of S.L. Abbas (supra) this Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 held that the interference by the Court in an order of transfer on the instance of an employee holding a transferrable post without any violation of statutory provision is not permissible.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 8 W.P. No. 10226/2026 9.2 This Court further curtailed the scope of judicial review in the case of N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others; (1994) 6 SCC 98 holding that the person challenging the transfer ought to prove on facts that such transfer is prejudicial to public interest. It was further reiterated that interference is only justified in a case of mala-fide or infraction of any professed norm or principle. Moreover, in the cases where the career prospects of a person challenging transfer remain unaffected and no detriment is caused, interference to the transfer must be eschewed. It is further held that the evidence requires to prove such transfer is prejudicial and in absence thereof interference is not warranted. The law reiterated by this Court is reproduced, in following words : -
9. Transfer of a public servant from a significant post can be prejudicial to public interest only if the transfer was avoidable and the successor is not suitable for the post. Suitability is a matter for objective assessment by the hierarchical superiors in administration. To introduce and rely on the element of prejudice to public interest as a vitiating Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 9 W.P. No. 10226/2026 factor of the transfer of a public servant, it must be first pleaded and proved that the replacement was by a person not suitable for the important post and the transfer was avoidable. Unless this is pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further inquiry into this aspect is necessary and its absence is sufficient to exclude this factor from consideration as a vitiating element in the impugned transfer.
Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset.
23. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.
24. Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 10 W.P. No. 10226/2026 detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill advised.
9.4 It is not tangential to mention that this Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt; AIR 1993 SC 2486 observed as thus : -
3. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting.........
9.5 It is also imperative to refer the judgement of this Court in the case of Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Projects Limited and Ors.;
(2013) 1 SCC 524 where it reiterated one of the pertinent principles of administrative law is that when allegations of mala-fide are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer. The relevant excerpt is reproduced as thus:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 11 W.P. No. 10226/2026
27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity it will neither be fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned........
10. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of:-
(i) pleadings regarding malafide,
(ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made,
(iii) violation of any statutory provision,
(iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 12 W.P. No. 10226/2026 of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
15. Keeping these strict parameters in mind, the sole issue for determination is whether the impugned transfer is vitiated by malice and is a colorable exercise of power, or whether it is a genuine outcome of administrative exigency.
16. This Court is of opinion that the most glaring proof of malice in law emerges from the respondents' own official communication. The letter dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure-P/10), written by the Deputy Secretary, Commercial Tax Department to the IG, Registration, explicitly states that the petitioner was transferred "in light of the FIR registered against him".
17. It is a trite law that an administrative transfer cannot be used as a substitute for a punitive measure or a disciplinary inquiry. By admitting in writing that the FIR is the sole trigger for the transfer, the respondents have confessed to a colorable exercise of power. Since the investigation and arrest in that very FIR have been stayed by the learned Division Bench, penalizing the petitioner for it via transfer is legally malicious and unsustainable.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 13 W.P. No. 10226/2026
18. Furthermore, the respondents' defense of "administrative exigency" collapses when tested against the factual record. A valid transfer must be driven by the needs of the administration, such as a specific officer being required elsewhere, or a replacement being urgently needed at the current posting. In the present case, there is a total absence of any documentary record proving such an exigency.
19. Moreover, the presence of "malice in fact" is inextricably established by the retaliatory timeline of events between July 28 and July 30, 2025. The petitioner filed the writ petition to quash the FIR on 28.07.2025. On 29.07.2025, the learned Division Bench heard the matter and directed the State to produce the case diary. The State machinery clearly realized the FIR was under judicial scrutiny. On the very next day, 30.07.2025, the petitioner was suddenly ambushed with the transfer order via e-mail at 12:04 PM. In an extraordinary show of undue haste, the Collector relieved the petitioner within merely two hours. Routine administrative transfers do not happen with a two-hour relieving window unless there is a grave emergency.
20. It is also pertinent to note that the transfer order is dated 21.07.2025, but it was not communicated to the petitioner until 30.07.2025. If the order was genuinely passed on July 21 for administrative reasons, keeping it in a drawer for nine days defies Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 14 W.P. No. 10226/2026 logic. Its sudden deployment on July 30, immediately after the learned Division Bench took cognizance on July 29, strongly suggests the document was antedated to cover up the retaliatory motive. Moreover the documents submitted by the respondents after reserving the order, which includes the note-sheet of the Secretariat does not specify the reason as to why the suspension order has been belatedly served to the petitioner on 30.07.2025, while the transfer order was issued on 21/07.2025.
21. Lastly, this Court notes that the learned Division Bench, in their order dated 01.08.2025, looked at this very timeline and explicitly recorded that:-
"Prima facie, it also appears that because the petitioner succeeded before Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court, he has been transferred mala fide."
When the learned Division Bench has made the opinion regarding mala fides, even though the stay has been vacated, the finding regarding mala fides being intact, this Court has no other view to deviate from the finding of the Division Bench.
22. As explicitly argued by the respondents in paragraph 7 and in their I.A. quoted in paragraphs 12 and 13, the vacation of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 15 W.P. No. 10226/2026 interim stay on 17.03.2026 was predicated entirely on procedural and technical grounds namely, the lack of specific pleadings regarding mala fides, the absence of a prayer challenging the transfer, and the non-joinder of the Commercial Tax Department in that distinct criminal writ petition. These procedural deficiencies in the previous petition do not erase the substantive factual malice that this Court has now independently analyzed and verified upon proper pleadings in the present petition.
23. The subterfuge is further compounded by the dates on the orders. The transfer order is dated 21.07.2025, but it was not communicated until 30.07.2025. If the order was genuinely passed on July 21 for administrative reasons, keeping it dormant for nine days defies logic. Its sudden deployment on July 30, immediately after the Division Bench took cognizance on July 29, strongly suggests the document was antedated to cover up the retaliatory motive. The action squarely falls within the exception of mala fides laid down in Sri Pubi Lombi (supra).
24. Resultantly, for the detailed reasons stated hereinabove, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8327 16 W.P. No. 10226/2026
25. The impugned transfer order dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure- P/1) and the consequential relieving order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure-P/10) are hereby quashed and set aside.
26. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai) Judge Aiyer*PS Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAGADISHAN AIYER Signing time: 26-03-2026 17:31:58