Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. N.S. Warulkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner the impugned transfer order was issued. The said transfer order is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 15-5-2014. It was a midterm transfer and, therefore, respondent No.1 has to follow the guidelines given in the Government Resolution. The respondent No.1 has not followed the guidelines, hence, the impugned transfer order is bad in law and needs to be quashed and set aside. During the argument, he has invited our attention to the said Government Resolution and more particularly, Clause No.2(2) in Chapter 5 of the said Government Resolution. To buttress his submission he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, (2009)2 SCC 592.

9. On perusal of Clause 2(2) of Chapter 5 of the Government Resolution dated 15-5-2014, it appears that if any complaint has been received against the employee and on enquiry if any substance is found in it, then only the employee can be transferred midterm or prematurely. However, prima facie the enquiry report does not show that substance was found in the allegations made in the said complaint. Despite the said fact, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned transfer order. The passing of the said transfer order itself shows that respondent No.1 has not considered the guidelines given in the said Government Resolution in its proper perspective and passed the impugned transfer order contrary to the provisions of the said Government Resolution. Therefore, the said conduct on the part of respondent No. 1 would attract the principle of malice of fact and law. Thus, it appears that the impugned transfer order suffers from a total non-application of mind in so far as it proceeds on the complaint of Zilla Parishad Member. Moreover, respondents Nos. 1 failed to show that it was necessary for the petitioner to give an invitation to the Zilla Parishad Member of the programme, which 8 wp5911.23.odt was organized by the petitioner.

10. Thus, to sum up, it appears that respondent No.1 without following the guidelines given in the Government Resolution has issued the midterm transfer order of the petitioner. The said transfer order not only suffers from a total non- application of mind but also suffers from the principle of malice in fact and law. In the case at hand, it needs to be emphasised that the transfer has not been based on any administrative ground, nor have the mandatory requirements of Government Resolution dated 15-5-2014 been fulfilled. Hence, the dictum laid down in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) that "the order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane to passing of an order of transfer and based on irrelevant ground that is on the allegation made against the petitioner on complaint" is squarely applicable to the case at hand. Consequently, passing of the impugned transfer order by respondent No.1 shows that the said transfer order was not passed in a bona fide exercise of power by respondent No.1. Therefore, in our opinion, such transfer order is arbitrary, irrational and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus 9 wp5911.23.odt interference is required in the impugned transfer order.