Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Harish Maganlal Baijal, was a Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Mumbai, and was transferred on 1/6/2009 as Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nashik. On 26/5/2011, he was transferred mid-term as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane, which he challenged before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 556 of 2011. The Tribunal initially stayed the transfer on 30/5/2011, noting that the administrative reason for transfer was not recorded. Subsequently, the State cancelled the earlier order and issued a fresh transfer order on 24/6/2011, transferring the petitioner to the same post. The petitioner amended his application to challenge the new order, but the Tribunal dismissed it, holding that the transfer was not punitive, arbitrary, or mala fide. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court heard the matter and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no merit in the challenge. The court noted that the transfer was based on administrative reasons and that allegations of misbehaviour did not require a full inquiry. The petition was dismissed, and the transfer order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Administrative Reasons - The court considered whether a transfer order based on 'administrative reasons' requires specification of the reason in the order or file. Held that while the initial transfer order was stayed for lack of recorded reasons, the subsequent order after compliance was valid and not punitive. (Paras 5-6)
B) Service Law - Transfer - Punitive Transfer - Allegations of misbehaviour or conduct for transfer do not require a full-fledged inquiry; transfer can be made on administrative grounds without stigma. (Para 6)
C) Service Law - Transfer - Mala Fides - The petitioner's allegations of mala fides were not substantiated; the transfer was not arbitrary. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order dated 24/6/2011 transferring the petitioner from the post of Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nashik to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane was punitive, arbitrary, or mala fide, and whether it violated the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delays in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 8/9/2011 and the transfer order dated 24/6/2011.
Law Points
- Transfer order not punitive
- administrative reasons need not be detailed
- mala fides not established
- mid-term transfer permissible under Transfer Act
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (10) 24
Writ Petition No. 7960 of 2011
B. H. Marlapalle, Smt. Nishita Mhatre
Mr. R.A. Dada, Senior Counsel with Mr. Pratik Seksaria i/by M/s. L.J. Law for petitioner; Mr. V.R. Dhond, Senior Counsel with Mr. A.B. Vagyani for respondent nos. 1 and 2; Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. S.S. Deshmukh for respondent no. 3
The State of Maharashtra through the Additional Chief Secretary and ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's challenge to his transfer order.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the transfer order dated 24/6/2011 and the Tribunal's order dated 8/9/2011.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was transferred mid-term from the post of Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nashik to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane, which he alleged was punitive, arbitrary, and mala fide.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal initially stayed the transfer order dated 26/5/2011 on 30/5/2011, but later dismissed the O.A. No. 556 of 2011 on 8/9/2011, upholding the fresh transfer order dated 24/6/2011.
Issues
Whether the transfer order dated 24/6/2011 was punitive in nature?
Whether the transfer order was arbitrary and mala fide?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the transfer was punitive as it was based on allegations of misbehaviour and was made without following due process.
The respondents contended that the transfer was for administrative reasons and was not punitive, and that the petitioner's allegations of mala fides were unsubstantiated.
Ratio Decidendi
A transfer order based on administrative reasons, even if preceded by allegations of misbehaviour, is not punitive unless it carries a stigma. The court will not interfere with transfer orders made in the public interest unless mala fides or arbitrariness are clearly established.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue is whether the administrative reason for which he has been transferred has been specified and recorded in writing by the competent Authority and brought to the notice of next higher competent Transferring Authority so that the said next higher competent Transferring Authority can take an informed decision on the proposal for transfer.
With regard to the above, it is clear from the judgment of Janardhan Debanath and Others quoted herein above that whenever there is an allegation of misbehaviour or conduct for the purpose of transfer there is no question of holding an inquiry.
Procedural History
The petitioner was transferred on 26/5/2011; he filed O.A. No. 556 of 2011 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 30/5/2011, which granted an interim stay. The State cancelled that order and issued a fresh transfer order on 24/6/2011. The petitioner amended the O.A. to challenge the new order. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on 8/9/2011. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 7960 of 2011 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 21/10/2011.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delays in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005:
