Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Tahsildar, Haveli, Pune with all consequential service benefits. 2] The basic ground on which the Original Application has been allowed by the learned Tribunal is that leave aside sufficient reasons for midterm transfer of the Petitioner, no reason at all is given in the proposal for transferring the Respondent No.3 from the post of Tahsildar, Haveli to the post on deputation to PMRDA, Pune and transferring the Petitioner from Mumbai to Pune. 3] Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the transfer of the Respondent No.3 is not a transfer within the meaning of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, but a deputation under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981, and as such, learned Tribunal has erred in invoking its jurisdiction. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that as a matter of fact, the Respondent No.3 has been posted within the same city and as such, the same would not amount to transfer in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of BGP. 2 of 7 (909)-WP-91-19.doc.

this Court in the case of Pradip Balkrushna Lonandkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (in Writ Petition No.7554 of 2013 & connected matters) dated 22nd November 2013. 4] The scope of interference by this Court while exercising the power of judicial review of the orders passed by the Tribunal is very limited. If this Court finds that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is either perverse or impossible, only then interference by this Court would be warranted.

5] Apart from that it is to be noted that the learned Tribunal has found that in the present case the proposal for transferring the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.3 was not considered by the Civil Services Board. The learned Tribunal has found that the Civil Services Board has proposed midterm transfer of 47 officers. However, the proposal for transferring the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.3 came to be mooted for the first time at the level of Hon'ble Minister. The learned Tribunal has perused the entire file. Upon perusal of the file, the learned Tribunal found that no reasons at all were given for effecting the midterm transfer of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.3. 

BGP.                                                                           5 of 7





 (909)-WP-91-19.doc.


7]                The Division Bench has clearly held that the legislative

intent is clear, that an employee should not be transferred prior to completion of his tenure. This would be permissible only when the competent authority records the reasons for the same and obtains prior approval of the immediately superior transferring authority. 8] It could thus be seen that recording of reasons is not an empty formality, but a safeguard is provided so that the normal rule is not deviated for an asking. The recording of reasons is also necessary, so that the Tribunals and Courts can exercise their powers of judicial review in an effective manner, so as to assess as to whether the reasons on which the midterm transfer is effected are proper or not 9] Undisputedly, in the present case, though there is approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister, there are no reasons even for namesake, as to why the midterm transfer of the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 is effected.