Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Singh vs Mppkvv Co. Limited on 30 September, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50460
1 WP-28133-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 30th OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 28133 of 2024
MUKESH SINGH
Versus
MPPKVV CO. LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri A.S. Khan - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Ankit Agrawal - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P/6), passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been transferred thrice within a short period of two years.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer on 16.08.2007 and was posted under the administrative control of Superintending Engineer, M.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. Tikamgarh. He is presently posted at District Sidhi and is holding the post of Executive Engineer (current charge). After the initial appointment of the petitioner, he was sent for training w.e.f. 16.08.2007 to 16.08.2008 which he completed successfully and thereafter he was given the regular charge on the post of Assistant Engineer. He has always complied with the transfer or posting orders as per the requirements. On 11.11.2016, he was directed to be posted Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 10/4/2024 7:27:34 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50460 2 WP-28133-2024 from Sagar to Patan and thereafter on 31.08.2018 he was further directed to be posted from Patan to Shahdol and on 12.01.2021 from Shahdol to Sidhi and vide order dated 07.04.2022 from Sidhi to Rewa. The said order was challenged by filing a Writ Petition No.8746/2022 and this Court was pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 07.04.2022
3. The petitioner joined at Rewa, but the department again vide order dated 14.08.2023 has transferred the petitioner from Rewa to Sidhi. He again complied with the transfer order and took charge at Sidhi and within a period of one year he has been transferred from Sidhi to Sagar. It is argued that for the reasons best known to the authorities the petitioner has been transferred time and again frequently. Petitioner's wife is also on a job of Government Teacher and due to frequent transfers of the petitioner she is unable to discharge her family liabilities. Therefore, in the compelling circumstances, she resigned from her job. The petitioner has a minor son studying in Class- VI and midterm transfer of the petitioner would adversely affect his academic career. The petitioner himself is taking treatment of liver disease. It is submitted that the transfer order is based on administrative exigencies as reflected from the impugned order. However, there is no administrative exigency. On the contrary the petitioner is being harassed by his frequent transfer within a short span of two years.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted a detailed reply denying the contentions of the writ petition. An attempt has been made to explain the frequent transfer of the petitioner. However, he clearly admitted the fact that the petitioner has been transferred three times in last two years.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 10/4/2024 7:27:34 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50460 3 WP-28133-2024 It is argued that petitioner was predominantly been working at Sidhi in the last three and half years. His performance was not satisfactory. The services of electricity distribution are essential services and in order to maintain proper administrative functioning if the performance of the employee is not good, then he is required to be transferred. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner time and again for his conduct performance and for the same reason the petitioner has been transferred from one place to another. There were certain complaints against the petitioner and looking to the serious allegations of embezzlement against the petitioner the In-charge Minister of the Energy Department has directed for conducting an enquiry in the matter.
5. The matter was forwarded to the State Government and it was directed by the State Government that an inquiry is required to be conducted on the said complaint and one member of the enquiry committee should be from other company. This information was sent by a communication dated 30.07.2024. Answering respondents have forwarded a communication dated 12.08.2024 to the State Government asking the Government to nominate such member for the purpose of taking action against the petitioner. But till date there is no nomination by the Government therefore, they could not proceed in the enquiry. Perhaps, for his reason the petitioner has been transferred. It is further contended that as the distribution of electricity is falling under the essential services therefore, no negligence in the duties can be caused. Time and again the petitioner was served with a show cause notice, but his performance is not improved. Therefore, in the compelling circumstances the petitioner was required to be transferred. He has prayed Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 10/4/2024 7:27:34 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50460 4 WP-28133-2024 for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. The record indicates that the petitioner has been frequently transferred from on three or four occasions since the year 2020. The earlier transfer order of the petitioner was interfered by this Court and interim relief was granted to him vide order dated 29.04.2022 passed in W.P. No.8746/2024 wherein a challenge was made to the transfer order dated 07.04.2022. Despite of the same, the petitioner was forced to join at Rewa. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.08.2023 he was transferred from Rewa to Sidhi. Now again vide impugned order dated 13.09.2024 he has been transferred from Sidhi to Sagar. The impugned order does not reflect any reason for transferring the petitioner. It is only mentioned that on administrative grounds the petitioner is transferred with immediate effect to Sagar and by same order the petitioner has been relieved.
8. By way of filing a return the respondents are substantiating their arguments and have made an attempt to demonstrate that the petitioner has been transferred owing to the fact that his performance in the past was not good and he was continuously not performing well.
9. As far as the fact that there are complaints against the petitioner regarding embezzlement of huge amount, it is required to be enquired in detail. The fact remains that despite of taking a decision regarding enquiry against the petitioner, no steps have been taken even to constitute a Committee or to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner, which are required to be enquired into. Until and unless the allegations made Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 10/4/2024 7:27:34 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50460 5 WP-28133-2024 against the petitioner are established, it cannot be said that financial embezzlement has been done by the petitioner. As far as his non- performance is concerned, the petitioner has recently been transferred in the present place, then how can the authorities ascertain the performance of the petitioner. On both grounds, the reply submitted by the respondent is not satisfactory. It is a case of frequent transfer of the petitioner i.e. he has been transferred thrice in a short span of time. The record further indicates that in terms of the policy of transfer the minimum period of an employee at a particular place is two years. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed the aforesaid tenure.
10. This Court is aware of the fact that the interference in the transferred matters should be made minimum and only exceptional cases should be interfered. The present case is a glaring example of frequent transfers of an employee based upon the recommendation of the Minister of the Department for the reasons best known to him. Merely, the complaint made against the petitioner or a show cause notice being issued to him regarding his non- performances cannot be a sole ground for transferring the employee frequently. These complaints and allegations are required to be enquired and established against the petitioner.
11. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to interfere in the transfer order passed by the respondents. There are no substantial reasons assigned in the return filed by the authorities to support the impugned transfer order except the fact that there are complaints against him. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P/6) passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 10/4/2024 7:27:34 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50460 6 WP-28133-2024 the respondent No.2 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. Authorities are directed to permit the petitioner to work in the present place of posting i.e. Sidhi.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed off.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE L.Raj Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 10/4/2024 7:27:34 PM