Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

by the 1st respondent in the MAT by filing Original Application No. 45 of 2008. The said original application was allowed by the MAT by its order dated 25/2/08. The MAT observed that no special reasons for midterm transfer of the 1st respondent were recorded as required by Section 4 (4)and Section 4 (5) of the Maharashtra Government Servant's Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharging of Official Duty Act, 2005 ("the Transfer Act"). After the MAT set aside the 1st respondent's midterm transfer, the petitioners cancelled the transfer order dated 10/1/08 by order dated 2/5/08 and posted respondents 1 and 2 to their previous posts.

Contemporaneous record contains the reasons. Had there been no reasons recorded in the file prior to the issuance of the transfer order, we would have had to set it aside.

33. Mr. Kumbhakoni contended that S. N. Mukherjee's case (supra) is not applicable to the present case because it does not deal with the Transfer Act which requires recording of reasons for midterm transfer. No doubt in that case the Supreme Court was not considering the validily of midterm transfer order. But the observations of the Supreme Court that reasons must be recorded by the administrative authority unless they are dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication and that the reasons need not be elaborate can certainly be taken into account.

38. Much stress has been laid by Mr. Kumbhakoni on the fact that, we are concerned here with a midterm transfer covered by the Transfer Act. In this connection, we may usefully refer to judgment of this court in V. B. Gadekar's case (supra).

In that case the petitioner was working as Deputy Engineer in the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ("MHADA" for short). He was transferred and posted at Nagpur in the office of MHADA by transfer order dated 30/6/07. It was a midterm transfer. The case was covered by the Transfer Act. Similar contention was raised that the petitioner could have only been transferred in exceptional circumstances for special reasons. It was argued that the order of transfer does not indicate any reasons much less special reasons and as such the order is liable to be set aside. After taking a resume of several decisions on the point the Division Bench of this court presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, observed as under:

39. We may also refer to the judgment of Aurangabad Bench of this court in Omprakash Ghanshyamdas Mudiraj's case (supra). In that case respondent 1 therein was working as a Superintending Engineer Nanded Irrigation Circle Nanded. A midterm transfer order was issued. He was transferred to Nasik. The case was governed by the Transfer Act. The 1st respondent challenged the transfer before the MAT. It was argued that the transfer order was malafide and that there were no special circumstances. It was argued that no reasons were recorded. The MAT set aside the order of transfer. Before this court it was inter alia submitted that the transfer order was malafide and in breach of the Transfer Act. It was pointed out that the Chief Minister had merely made an endorsement to the effect "Please consider" and there was no endorsement of prior approval. This court took note of the fact that Members of Legislative Assembly and Members of Legislative Council had recommended to the State Government the case of the 2nd respondent who was brought in the place of the 1st respondent by midterm transfer.