Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manpal Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2019
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.15020/2019
Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others
Gwalior, Dated : 29.08.2019
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Purshottam Rai, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, Counsel for respondent no.3.
Heard finally.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order No. 46/2019 dated 22-7-2019 passed by Inspector General of Registration, thereby transferring the petitioner from Dabra to the office of Deputy Registrar, Porsa Distt. Morena.
2. The sole ground of challenge is that the impugned transfer order has been passed out of malafides on the complaint of the respondent no.3.
3. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is posted in the office of Dy. Registrar, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior from 05/2017. It is submitted that the respondent no. 3 is a service provider, to whom license has been granted by the Department for drafting documents and also for multipurpose works in providing service. The respondent no.3 had got a sale deed registered in respect of a land on which mine is being operated and crusher is also in operation. However, the said land was shown to be an agricultural land. The said fraud was detected and thereafter the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others matter has been forwarded for recovery of deficit Stamp Duty. In another matter, the respondent no. 3 got a sale deed executed in respect of a land on which a building is situated but the property was shown to be a vacant plot. An enquiry was done and the matter was forwarded for lodging F.I.R. against the respondent no.3, however, more than one year has passed, no F.I.R. has been lodged. Thus, the respondent no.3 was annoyed with the petitioner. Therefore, he started making complaints to the higher authorities. The complaint dated 10-7-2019 and complaint dated 20-6-2019 have been annexed as Annexure P/5. It is submitted that under the pressure of the respondent no. 3, who claims himself to the Regional General Secretary of M.P. Congress Committee Jhuggi Jhopadi Prakoshtha, Bhopal, the respondent no.2 has issued the impugned order dated 22- 7-2019.
4. The respondents no. 1 and 2 filed their return and denied the allegations of malafides. It is submitted that on 11-7-2019, one of the service provider lodged a F.I.R. against the petitioner, and consequently, on 12-11-2017, all the service providers working in the Tahsil Dabra, Distt. Gwalior, made a complaint against the petitioner, alleging misconduct. Protests were also made in the office of Sub- Registrar, Department of Stamp and Registration. Therefore, considering the law and order situation as well as in administrative 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others exigency, the petitioner, has been transferred from Dabra to Porsa, Distt. Morena after taking approval of the Minister-In-Charge of the Department. A copy of the note sheet dated 15-7-2015, written by Inspector General of Registration, has also been annexed along with the return.
5. The respondent no.3 has also filed his return separately. It is mentioned that various complaints were made against the petitioner, alleging corruption and misbehaviour of the petitioner. The Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere in the order of the Transfer. Court can interfere in case of violation mandatory statutory rule or action is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. The petitioner used to demand illegal gratification for registration of documents, therefore, the entire service providers had carried out peaceful protest in front of the office of Sub-Registrar and during the said protest, the petitioner had used abusive language and therefore, the police has registered Crime No. 406/2019 for offence under Section 294,506B/34 of I.P.C. at Police Station Dabra. In para 5.6 of the return, the respondent no. 3 has admitted the complaint dated 10-7- 2019 was made against the petitioner. Further, the respondent no.3 has also filed copies of some more complaints made against the Sub- Registrar and the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the return filed by the 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others respondents no.1 and 2/State. Along with the rejoinder, the petitioner has filed a copy of the enquiry report dated 3-8-2019 given by Senior District Registrar, Distt. Gwalior, by which the petitioner has been exonerated of all the charges/allegations made in complaint dated 10- 7-2019.
7. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, that in complaint dated 10-7-2019, no allegation of corruption was leveled against the petitioner. It is only mentioned that certain advisories have been issued to the Service Providers, which are causing inconvenience to them and the behavior of the petitioner is not good. As per the enquiry report dated 3-8-2019, it has been held that there is no proof to show that any advisory was issued by Sub-Registrar. Further, none of the allegations made in the complaint dated 10-7- 2019 have been found to be proved, only the contrary, the so called advisories allegedly issued by the Sub-Registrar were found to be in accordance with law. It is submitted that in fact, the service providers are not working in accordance with law and are causing financial loss to the State Govt, therefore, they started protesting and under the instructions of the Minister, the petitioner has been transferred, and thus, it is a glaring case of malafide.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 that it is a case of Dharamyudha where the misdeeds of 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others the petitioner were exposed by the service providers and therefore, the State has rightly transferred the petitioner. Thereafter, it was further submitted that the petitioner has not been transferred on the complaints of the service providers, but since, he was wrongly posted in Gwalior as Gwalior is his Home Town, therefore, he has been transferred out of his home town. Thus, self contradictory submissions were made by the Counsel for the State.
9. The Counsel for the State was informed that he is arguing contrary to the return filed by the State and he should not use the words like Dharamyudha. However, the Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 persisted with his arguments, that in fact the petitoner was not transferred because of any complaint but he was transferred, because he was wrongly posted in Distt. Gwalior. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the State that although the note sheet dated 15-7 -2019 written by the respondent no. 2 has a reference to the recommendation made by Minister, Women and Child Welfare Department, Madhya Pradesh, for transfer of the petitioner with immediate effect, but the real cause of transfer was that he was wrongly posted in District Gwalior. When the Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 was directed to point out from the return of the respondents no. 1 and 2 that the petitioner was not transferred because of complaints, then he fairly conceded that the 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others only stand which the State has taken in the return is that the petitoner was transferred for maintenance of law and order which had arisen because of complaints.
10. It is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent no.3 that since, there were serious complaints of corruption against the petitioner, therefore, there was an agitation against him, and a F.I.R. was also lodged against the petitioner for offence under Section 294,506B/34 of I.P.C., therefore, he has been rightly transferred. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 had also filed a writ petition no. 16742/2019 for taking action against the petitioner.
11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
12. Although the respondent no.3 has made allegations of corruption against the petitioner, but the Counsel for the petitioner, could not point out any single allegation of corruption in any complaint made by him. In complaint dated 9-7-2019 (Annexure R- 3/1), similar allegations which were made in complaint dated 10-7- 2019 (Annexure P/5) have been made. Similarly in other complaints, it is mentioned that pressure is being applied for payment of illegal gratification, however, no specific incident of accepting illegal gratification has been pointed out. No complaint to the vigilance department like S.P.E. (Lokayukt) or E.O.W. with regard to acceptance of illegal gratification or demand of illegal gratification 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others was ever made. No trap was ever laid against the petitioner. Thus, the allegation of corruption is held to be an after thought and baseless and made to malign the image of the petitioner.
13. The petitioner has filed copies of two complaints as Annexure P/5. The complaint dated 20-6-2019 made by the respondent no.3 is against the Sub-Registrar, Dabra, and there is not a single whisper against the petitioner. However, the complaint dated 10-7-2019 is jointly against the Sub-Registrar and the petitioner, which reads as under :
Jheku~ ftyk iath;d egksn;] ftyk Xokfy;j ¼e-iz-½ fo"k; %& mi iath;d Mcjk }kjk fodz; i= iath;u u djus ds laca/k esaA egksn~;] mijksDr fo"k; esa fuosnu gS fd mi iath;d Jh iz'kkUr lkgw ,oa ofj"B iath;u fyfid Jh ekuiky flag jkor }kjk ge leLr lsok iznkrkvksa dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS fd vki fuEufyf[kr nLrkostksa ds iath;u gsrq LykWV vkjf{kr ugha djsaxs %& 1- ;g fd] ftu jftfLVz~;ksa esa vkWfQl¼jftLVz~kj iz'kkUr lkgw ,oa ckcw ekuiky flag jkor½ ds futh LokFkZ dh iwfrZ u gks ,slh ds LykWV vkjf{kr u djsaA 2- ;g fd] ftu d`f"k Hkwfe ,oa Hkw[k.M esa ,d ls vf/kd lgHkkxhnkj gS rks dksbZ Hkh ,d lgHkkxhnkj fcuk nwljs lgHkkxhnkj ds lgefr ds vius fgLls dk fodz; i= laiknu ugha dj ldrk vkSj ,sls Hkwfe] IykWV ,oa Hkou dk LykWV vkjf{kr u djsaA 3- ;g fd] fcuk cVokjk ,oa cVkadu dksbZ Hkh d`f"k Hkwfe] Hkou ,oa Hkw[k.< dk fodz; i= gsrq LykWV vkjf{kr u djsaA 4- ;g fd] Hkw[k.M ,oa Hkou ds fodz; i= gsrq dEI;qVjhd`r [kljk izekf.kr gksus ds ckotwn Hkh rglhynkj ls izekf.kr Hkw&vf/kdkj ,oa _.k iqfLrdk ds fcuk dksbZ Hkh fodz; i= dk LykWV vkjf{kr u djsaA 5- ;g fd] uxj ikfydk esa fLFkr Hkwfe ,oa Hkouksa dh laifRrdj dh jlhn ,oa ukekarj.k izek.k i= gksus ds ckotwn orZeku lh-,e-vks- dh ,u-vks-lh- ds fcuk dksbZ Hkh LykWV vkjf{kr u djsA 6- ;g fd] ,d Hkw[k.M ds fodz; i= ds ckn mDr fodzhr Hkw[k.M dk tc rd ukekarj.k u gks tk;s rFkk dEI;wVj vfHkys[k esa ntZ u gks tk;s rFkk mldk cVkadu u gks tk;s rc rd nwljs Hkw[k.M ds fodz; i= dk LykWV vkjf{kr u djsaA 7- ;g fd] uxj ikfydk Mcjk lhek ls ckgj xzke iapk;r ,oa xzke vkcknh ds Hkouksa ,oa Hkw[k.Mksa ds fodz; i= gsrq LykWV vkjf{kr u fd;s tk;sa] tcfd mlesa xzke iapk;r lfpo ,oa ljiap dk izek.khdj.k gksA 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others 8- ;g fd] mi iath;d dk;kZy; esa lsok iznkrkvksa ds lkFk vHknz O;ogkj fd;k tkrk gSA 9- ;g fd] mDr leLr dkj.kksa ls ge lsok iznkrk vR;kf/kd nq[kh gS vkSj gekjk dk;Z izHkkfor gks jgk gS] rFkk 'kklu dks jktLo dk uqdlku gks jgk gS rFkk ftu dkj.kksa ls LykWV vkjf{kr gsrq euk fd;k tk jgk gS] og leLr dkj.k fujk/kkj gSA vr% fuosnu gS fd 5 fnol ds vUnj mDr leLr leL;kvksa dk lek/kku djkosa vU;Fkk ge lHkh lsokiznkrk mDr funsZ'kksa dk ikyu djus esa vleFkZ jgsaxs rFkk dk;Z ugha dj ik;saxsA ge dk;Z u djus dh fLFkfr esa 'kklu dks tks jktLo dh gkfu gksxh mldh leLr tckonkjh mi iath;d Mcjk ,oa Jheku~ dh gksxhA fnukad ------------------------
izkFkhZx.k 1- egkjkt flag jktkSfj;k¼v/;{k½ 2- g`ns'k dqekj xqIrk 3- xtsUnz flag jktkSfj;k 4- vHk; dqekj tSu 5- larks"k nqcs 6- fotsUnz tSu 7- nhIrh 'kekZ 8- eksgu dqekj nqcs 9- vafdr vxzoky 10- vafdr xqIrk 11- lfpu flag catkjk 12- lrh'k lkgw 13- chjsUnz 'kekZ 14- izdk'k jtd 15- eqds'k dqekj eqnxy 16- 'kqHke tSu 17- foosd xkSre 18- vt; ifjgkj 19- jktsUnz fo'odekZ 20- vpZuk eqnxy 21- izdk'k oekZ 22- uhrs'k 'kekZ 23- fodkl ikjk'kj 24- ek;kjke dq'kokg 25- c`teksgu JhokLro 26- 'kSysUnz lw;Zoa'kh 27- izeksn xqIrk 28- Jherh iwtk f'kogjs 29- fnus'k jkBkSM+ 30- Jherh paUnzs'k flag izfrfyfi%& 1- ekuuh; Jherh bZejrh nsoh lqeu] cky fodkl ea=h] Hkksiky 2- ekuuh; izeq[k lfpo egksn~;] jktLo ,oa okf.kT;dj Hkksiky 3- Jheku~ egkfujh{kd iath;u ,oa v/kh{k.k eqnzkad Hkksiky 4- Jheku~ mi egkfujh{kd iath;u ,oa v/kh{k.k eqnzkad Xokfy;j 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others
14. The respondents have not denied that the above mentioned complaint was not made by the service providers led by the respondent no.3, thus it is clear that the allegations made in the complaint dated 10-7-2019 were the cause of agitation by service providers including the respondent no.3.
15. The Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 was directed to go through the complaint dated 10-7-2019 and to point out any allegation, which may amount to misconduct or corruption. After taking much time, the Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 could not point out even a single allegation(s) made in complaint dated 10- 7-2019, which may amount to misconduct or corruption.
16. Similarly, the Counsel for the respondent no.3 was directed to point out any allegation in the complaint dated 10-7-2019, which may amount to misconduct or corruption. After going through the complaint dated 10-7-2019, the Counsel for the respondent no.3 also could not point out any allegation which may amount to misconduct or corruption.
17. Further, the petitioner, along with his rejoinder has filed the copy of the enquiry report dated 3-8-2019 given by Senior Registrar, Distt. Gwalior in which clean chit has been given to the petitioner. On the contrary, the alleged advisories issued by the Sub-Registrar as contained in complaint dated 10-7-2019 have been found to be in 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others accordance with law. The Senior Registrar, Gwalior has also given a finding that no evidence has been filed to show that any such advisory alleged by the complainant (s) was ever issued. The enquiry report dated 3-8-2019 reads as under :
tkap izfrosnu fnuakd 03 vxLr 2019 fo"k; %& mi iath;d Mcjk }kjk fodz;i= iath;u u djus ds laca/k esa f'kdk;r Jh egkjkt flag jktkSfj;k ,oa vU; 29&lsok iznkrkx.k Mcjk ds gLrk{kj gSaA mDr vkosnui= Jheku ds }kjk v/kksgLrk{kj dks LFkkukUrfjr dh xbZ gSA lkFk gh f'kdk;drkZvksa ds }kjk izfrfyfi 1- ekuuh; Jherh bZejrhnsoh lqeu] dschusV ea=h] efgyk cky fodkl foHkkx e/;izns'k 'kklu Hkksiky 2- ekuuh; izeq[k lfpo egksn;] jktLo ,oa okf.kfT;d dj Hkksiky 3- egkfujh{kd iath;u ,oa v/kh{kd eqnzakd e/;izns'k Hkksiky 4- mi egkfujh{kd iath;u iz{ks= Xokfy;j ,oa dysDVj egksn; Xokfy;j dks nh xbZ gSA f'kdk;drkZvksa ds }kjk tks f'kdk;r izLrqr dh xbZ gS mlds laca/k esa muds }kjk ,slk dksbZ nLrkost@lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gS fd ftlls ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd mDr laca/k esa mi iath;d Jh iz'kkar lkgw ,oa iath;u fyfid Jh ekuiky flag jkor }kjk dksbZ funsZ'k fn;s gSaA lsok iznkrkvksa dk dk;Z nLrkost ds fy[kus ,oa LyakV cqd rd lhfer jgrk gS u fd nLrkost dk iath;u djkus dkA iath;u vf/kdkjh ,oa lsok iznkrkvksa dks foHkkx ,oa ftys ds dysDVj }kjk le;≤ ij tks funsZ'k ;k lwpuk;sa tkjh dh tkrh gS mlls v+|ru jguk gksrk gSA fQj Hkh f'kdk;r esa fn;s x;s fcUnqvksa ij cS/kkfud rF;kRed izfrosnu fuEukuqlkj gS %& fcUnq dzeakd 01%& fcUnq dzekad 01 esa vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS fd mi iath;d Jh iz'kkar lkgw ,oa fyfid Jh ekuiky flag ds }kjk LokFkZiwfr u gks ,sls LykV vkjf{kr u djsaA mDr yxk;k x;k vkjksi ds laca/k esa e/;izns'k LVkEi fu;e 1942 esa la'kks/ku fnuakad 01-11-12014 dh vf/klwpuk ls lsok iznkrk ds dk;Z dks n'kkZ;k x;k gSA mDrkuqlkj bZ& iath;u foys[k gsrq LykaV cqd dk;Z lsok iznkrk gsaM ls gksrk gS u fd mi iath;d ds gsaM ls vFkkZr fcUnq dzekad 1 dk vkjksi fla) gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA fcUnq dzeakad 02 %& fcUnq dzekad 2 esa vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS fd lg [kkrsnkj dh laifRr dk fcuk lgefr ds nLrkost ds iath;u dk LykWV cqd u djsaA fu;ekuqlkj bZ& iath;u foys[k gsrq LykaaV cqd dk dk;Z lsok iznkrk gsaM ls gksrk gS u fd mi iath;d ds gsaM ls gksrk gSA lsokiznkrk fu;e ,oa yk;lsal dh 'krkZ ds rgr lsok iznkrk dks fu;e ,oa yk;lsal dh 'krksZ dk ikyu djuk vfuok;Z gSA vFkkZr fcUnq dzekad 2 dk vkjksi fl) 11 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA fcUnq dzeakd 03 %& fcUnq dzeakd 3 esa vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS fd fcuk cVokjk] ,oa cVkdau ds d`f"k Hkwfe Hkou@Hkw[kaM dk LykWV cqd u djsaA fu;ekuqlkj bZ% iath;u foys[k gsrq LykaV cqd dk dk;Z lsok iznkrk gsaM ls gksrk gS u fd mi iath;d ds gsaM ls vFkkZr fcUnq dzeakd 3 dk vkjksi fl) gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA fcUnq dzeakd 04%& iath;u fu;e &19¼.k½ ds vuqlkj] d`f"k Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr jftLVz~hdj.k vf/kfu;e 1908 dh /kkjk& 17 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼d½ ls ¼M½ ds mica?kksa ds v/khu jftLVz~hdj.k ds fy;s visf{kr dksbZ nLrkost] jktLo foHkkx ds }kjk bl laca/k esa izkf/kd`r fdlh jktLo vf/kdkjh }kjk izekf.kr ikap'kkyk [kljk dh izfr lfgr izLrqr fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA Hkw&vf/kdkj +_.k iqfLrdk ,oa izekf.kr [kljk izLrqr djuk vko';d gSA vFkkZr fcUnq dzeakd 4 dk vkjksi fl) gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA fcUnq dzeakd 05%& nLrkost esa of.kZr laifRr 'kkldh; rks ugha gS bl gsrq utwy dh ,u0 vks0 lh0 ,oa okMZ fujh{kd dks xokg cukus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gSA fcUnq dzeakd 5 dk vkjksi fl) gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA fcUnq dzeakd 06%& fodz; dh tk jgh laifRr ¼ {ks=Qy ½ dk lek/kku djus ds mn~ns'; ls v|ru izekf.kr [kljk jktLo vfHkys[k esa ntZ djkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gSA LykaV cqd dk dk;Z lsok iznkrk gsaM ls gksrk gS u fd mi iath;d ds gsaM ls vFkkZr fcUnq dzeakd 6 dk vkjksi fl) gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA fcUnq dzeakd 07%& nLrkost esa of.kZr laifRr 'kkldh; rks ugha gS bl gsrq utwy dh ,u0 vks0 lh0 ,oa xzke lfpo dks xokg cukus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gSA laifRr vUrj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk &55 esa fodszrk ,oa dzsrk ds nkf;Ro dh ifjHkk"kk nh xbZ gS ftlds vuqlkj fodz; laifRr dh iw.kZ:i ls Nkuchu dj ikdlkQ gks blds fy;s mUgh dks vf/kdkj fn;k x;k gS vFkkZr fcUnq dzeakd 7 dk vkjksi fl) gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA fcUnq dzeakd 08%& fcUnq dzeakd&8 esa vHknz O;ogkj dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS bl laca/k esa mi iath;d ds }kjk crk;k x;k fd lsok iznkrkvksa ls ifgpkui= lkFk esa ykus] ,oa iath;u izfdz;k esa vuqfpr O;o/kku u Mkyus] nLrkost esa laifRr dk lR;rk iwoZd lgh& lgh fooj.k vafdr djus dh le>kbl] laifRr dk LFky fujh{k.k ,oa lsok iznkrk fu;eksa ds rgr 'kqYd dh rkfydk yxkbZ tkus ds funsZ'kksa dks og vHknz O;ogkj ekurs gSaA ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa ds }kjk fu;eksa dk ikyu gsrq funsZf'kr djuk vHknz O;ogkj dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrk gSA fcUnq dzeakd 8 dk vkjksi fl) gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA fcUnq dzeakd 09 %& jktLo {kfr dk vkjksi vlR; gSA dk;kZy; mi iath;d Mcjk esa o"kZ 2017&18 ds vis{kk o"kZ 2018&2019 esa vk; c`f) gqbZ gSA fcUnq 12 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others dzeakd 9 dk vkjksi fl) gksuk ugha ik;k x;kA orZeku esa Jh iz'kkar lkgw mi iath;u@Jh ekuiky flag jkor iath;u fyfid dks dk;kZy; ftyk iath;d esa vVSp dj fy;k x;k gSA Jh ekuiky flag jkor iath;u fyfid dk LFkkukUrj.k egkfujh{kd iath;u] e/;izns'k Hkksiky ds vkns'k dzeakd 46@LFkk0lsok@2019 fnuakd 22-7-2019 ls Mcjk ls iksjlk ftyk eqjSuk fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlds fo:) Jh ekuiky flag jkor iath;u fyfid ds }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [kaMihB Xokfy;j esa WP NO.15020-2019 izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk vkns'k fnuakd 29-7-2019 }kjk ;FkkfLFkfr j[kus ds vkns'k fn;s x;s gSaA vkosnui= esa vafdr fcUnq dzeakd 01 yxk;r 09 fla) gksuk ugha ik;s x;sA f'kdk;r uLrhc) dh tkuk mfpr gSA ofj"B ftyk iath;d ftyk Xokfy;j ¼e0iz0½^^
18. The respondents no.1 and 2 have filed a copy of the F.I.R. dated 11-7-2019 lodged by one Rahul Jain, one of the Service Provider, according to which, on 9-7-2019, the service providers were protesting in front of the office of Sub-Registrar, Dabra, then the petitioner and the Sub-Registrar had used abusive language and had also threatened.
19. If the protest which was being done by the service providers on 9-7-2019 is considered in the light of the allegations made in complaint dated 9-7-2019 and 10-7-2019, then it is clear that the service providers were not ready to accept the so called alleged advisories. Even otherwise, the Senior Registrar, Gwalior had found that the alleged advisories are also not contrary to law and were not issued by Sub-Registrar. Further, when the Counsel for the respondent no.3 was asked as to why, no allegation of threat extended 13 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others by the petitioner on 9-7-2019 has been mentioned in the complaint dated 10-7-2019, then he could not give any explanation. However, the Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 submitted that the service providers might have forgotten to mention the incident of 9-7-2019, in their complaint dated 10-7-2019. The submission made by the Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 cannot be accepted. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has been transferred due to the pressure mounted by the Service Providers including the respondent no.3. Since, the Senior Registrar, Distt. Gwalior, has given its report dated 3-8-2019, which has not been denied by the respondents, therefore, it is clear that the pressure mounted by the service providers was for illegal demands. Further, it is clear from the note sheet dated 15-7- 2019, written by respondent no.2, that the Minister, Women and Child Welfare Department, Bhopal, had directed the respondent no.2 to issue the transfer order immediately on the same day.
20. The Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 169 has held as under :
"5. On 28-12-1994, the appellant conducted a raid on Mr Rathod at Dharayan Tal, Erandol Amalner Tal, Amalner. Sample was taken from the toddy for analysis on the even date; consequently, offences were registered on 29-12- 1994, on the basis of the Analysis Report received on 25-8-1995. It revealed that that toddy 14 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others was adulterated. Therein, it was clearly stated that it contained chloral hydrate, a very harmful and poisonous substance which could endanger the lives of the consumers. The appellant asked for permission of the competent authorities to prosecute the licensee and also for cancellation of the licence. By his proceedings of even date, i.e., 25-8-1995, permission was granted. As a counter- blast to sincere and legal action taken by the appellant against Mr Narayana Goud, the toddy contractor, the latter lodged his complaint against the appellant on 30-8-1995 and the Minister for District (designated as Guaradia Minister) repeated the complaint to the Minister for State Excise on the basis of the contractor's complaint on 28-9-1995. This is the lynching point where the officer was alleged to be wanting in duty. It would be obvious that based upon this complaint given by the Guaradia Minister to the Minister for State Excise, triggered another complaint by one Shewala, President of the Country Liquor Association on 7-10-1995. Pursuant to the permission for cancellation of the licence, the licence came to be cancelled on 24-9-1996. On the basis of these complaints, the action appears to have been initiated as per the proceedings dated 18-11-1995. Action was taken against the appellant and ultimately he came to be transferred. It is seen that the officer supposed to review the performance of the duties of the officers on 7-7-1995, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Excise had reviewed and stated that from 25-3- 1995 to 25-5-1995 he collected articles worth Rs 34,996.00, Rs 1,91,853.00 and Rs 1,80,143.00 in three months. In his commendation he has stated that "after considering the abovesaid particulars, except Mr A.D. Dhande, Inspector Flying Squad, Jalgaon" not a single officer had fulfilled the required quota. "Please congratulate Mr Dhande on my behalf for his excellent work and for having fulfilled his target." It was signed by S.A. Patil, Deputy Commissioner, Excise.15
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others
6. In view of the unimpeachable and eloquent testimony of the performance of the duties, it will be obvious that the transfer is not in public interest but is a case of victimisation of an honest officer at the behest of the aggrieved complainants carrying on the business in liquor and toddy. Under these circumstances, as stated earlier, the transfer of the appellant is nothing but mala fide exercise of the power to demoralise honest officers who would efficiently discharge the duties of public office.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The transfer order of the appellant stands quashed. Order may be communicated to the Chief Secretary to take appropriate action against the persons responsible for it and the action taken may be informed to this Registry.
(Underline applied)"
21. Thus, from the facts of the case, it is clear that the State has punished an officer, against whom the allegations were made by the respondent no.3 and other service providers, that certain advisories which are inconvenient to them have been issued, and the Senior Registrar, Distt. Gwalior, has found that although there is no evidence to the effect that any advisory/instructions were ever issued, but even otherwise, the said alleged advisories are in accordance with law and the allegations are baseless.
22. Further, the respondent no.3 had also filed another writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P. No. 16742 of 2019, which has been dismissed by this Court by passing the following order :
16
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others "28-8-2019 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
7.1) The respondents may kindly be directed to take appropriate and suitable action on the application of the petitioner Annexure P1 in order to ensure the personal life and liberty of the petitioners.
2) The respondents may also kindly be directed to ensure that no one can restrain the petitioners from discharging their duties as Service Provider in the Office of Sub-Registrar Dabra District Gwalior MP
3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circustances of the case may also kindly be granted.
The petition which has been filed, is completely vague. Vague and bald allegations have been made.
It is fairly conceded by the Counsel for the petitioner that no instance has been pointed out to show that the petitioners were restrained from working as Service Provider in the premises of the Office of Sub-Registrar, Dabra, Distt.
Gwalior. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that although the respondent no.4 was transferred but this Court has stayed the effect and operation of the transfer order and therefore, the respondent no.4 is still working in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Dabra, Distt.
Gwalior.
Thus, it appears taht because of some personal grievances, an attempt is being made to make vague allegations. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for the settlement of personal grudge. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of vague allegations, no case is made out warranting interference.
Petition fails and is hereby Dismissed."
17
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.15020/2019 Manpal Rawat Vs. State of M.P. and others
23. Thus, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the impugned order of transfer dated 22-7-2019 is nothing but malafide exercise of powers because of illegal pressure mounted by the respondent no.3 and other service providers, and the respondent no.2 has also issued the impugned order, without verifying the correct facts.
24. Thus, the impugned order dated 22-7-2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by Inspector General of Registration, State of M.P., Bhopal is quashed. In the light of the interim order dated 29-7-2019, the petitioner is still working on his original post at Dabra, Distt. Gwalior. He shall continue to work on the said post.
25. Order be communicated to the Chief Secretary to take appropriate action against the persons responsible for it within a period of 2 months and the action taken be informed to the Registry of this Court.
26. Petition succeeds and is hereby Allowed with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within a period of 1 month from today. The cost shall be paid by the respondent no.3. The respondent is directed to file the receipt of payment of cost within a period of one month from today.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Arun* Judge
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2019.09.04 10:45:55 +05'30'