Decided on August 02,2018

State Of M P And Ors Respondents


Nandita Dubey, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is working as regular Chief Municipal Officer is aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2018, whereby he has been transferred from Ajaygarh, district Panna to Nagar Parishad Patera, district Damoh and respondent No.4, who is Revenue Sub-Inspector, working as an Incharge Chief Municipal Officer, has been posted in his place.
(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed on the post of Chief Municipal Officer vide order dated 30.12.2016. He was posted on probation at Nagar Panchayat, Ajaygarh, district Panna on 23.01.2017, for a period of two years. However, he was transferred for the reasons of administrative exigency on 16.05.2018 from Ajaygarh to Nagar Parishad Patera, district Damoh. According to him the impugned order is malafide, as it was passed to accommodate the respondent No.4, who was transferred from Patera to Ajaygarh in the capacity of In-charge Chief Municipal Officer. It is contended that the petitioner is holding the substantive regular post of Chief Municipal Officer, whereas respondent No.4, who has been transferred in the place of petitioner is holding the substantive post of Revenue Sub-Inspector and posted as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer against a substantive regular post of Chief Municipal Officer. It is further contended that malafide is obvious from the fact that he has been hurriedly relieved on the very next day by respondent No.3, who had no authority to relieve him, as the authority for the same vests with Deputy Director, Urban Administration Division. He has further contended that he has not handed over the charge. The petitioner has placed reliance on Rajesh Kumar Shakya Vs. State of M.P. & others, 2010 1 MPLJ 656 wherein the Court has held :- "8. In the circumstances, the action of the first respondent in transferring the petitioner and posting back the second respondent at the same place from where he was transferred as In-charge of the said post is held to be mala fide exercise of powers. As a result, the impugned order (Annexure P-1), so far as it relates to the petitioner and the second respondent and the consequential orders of joining of the second respondent and relieving of the petitioner are quashed."
(3.) Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their reply. It has been stated that transfer of the petitioner is a routine transfer for the reason of administrative exigencies and not only the petitioner but 48 other persons were also transferred alongwith with him by the impugned order. According to the respondents, apart from making bald allegations against respondent No.3, petitioner has not produced any document on record to substantiate the allegations of malafide. It is further stated that the relieving authority of petitioner, as per the policy dated 28.06.1993 is respondent No.3 and the Deputy Director, Urban Administration has no authority to relieve the petitioner. It is stated that the service conditions of petitioner has not been altered, in as much as he was transferred in the same capacity of CMO to Municipal Council, Patera, district Damoh. According to the respondents, the petitioner is holding a transferable job and does not have any vested right to continue at the present place of posting.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.