Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri A.P. Kamble, a government servant, filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 2nd August 2012, which allowed the Original Application No. 730 of 2012 filed by Respondent No. 2, Shankar Bapurao Bhandare, challenging his transfer order dated 2nd August 2011. The Tribunal had set aside the transfer order on the ground that there was no proposal from the Social Justice Department to transfer the applicant or Respondent No. 2; instead, a chart was prepared in the office of the Hon'ble Minister, which is not contemplated under the Transfer Act. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that in view of its earlier order in O.A. No. 388/2006, Respondent No. 2 could not have been posted in Pune district, and the complaint of misbehavior against the applicant was vague and unverified. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, found no infirmity in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Validity of Transfer Order - Transfer Act - Transfer order challenged on ground that it was not proposed by the Social Justice Department but originated from the Minister's office - Court held that such a proposal is not contemplated under the Transfer Act and the transfer order is invalid - Also, the transfer ignored a prior Tribunal order regarding posting in Pune district (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a transfer order passed without a proposal from the concerned department and based on a chart prepared in the Minister's office is valid under the Transfer Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 2nd August 2012, which set aside the transfer order of Respondent No. 2.
Law Points
- Transfer order must originate from the concerned department
- not from the Minister's office
- Transfer Act provisions must be strictly followed
- prior Tribunal orders regarding posting must be respected
- vague complaints cannot justify transfer
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO. 7699 OF 2012
A.M.KHANWILKAR, SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI
Mr. M. S. Karnik, i/b. Mr. H. M. Inamdar, for the petitioner; Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, with Mr.Satyam Acharya, for Respondent No.2; Mr. V. S. Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent No. 1
1) The State of Maharashtra, 2) Shri. Shankar Bapurao Bhandare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowing an Original Application against a transfer order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the Tribunal's order dated 2nd August 2012 which allowed the Original Application filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging his transfer order.
Filing Reason
The transfer order was challenged on the ground that it was not proposed by the Social Justice Department but originated from the Minister's office, violating the Transfer Act.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 730 of 2012 on 2nd August 2012, setting aside the transfer order dated 2nd August 2011.
Issues
Whether the transfer order was valid when it was based on a chart prepared in the Minister's office without a proposal from the concerned department.
Whether the transfer order ignored a prior Tribunal order regarding posting in Pune district.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the transfer order.
Respondent No. 2 supported the Tribunal's decision, contending that the transfer was not in accordance with the Transfer Act.
Ratio Decidendi
A transfer order must be based on a proposal from the concerned department and not originate from the Minister's office, as such a proposal is not contemplated under the Transfer Act. Additionally, transfer orders must respect prior Tribunal orders regarding postings.
Judgment Excerpts
The record clearly indicates that a chart was prepared in the office of the Hon'ble Minister. Such a proposal is totally not contemplated as per the provisions of the Transfer Act.
In view of our order passed in O.A. No. 388/2006 Respondent No. 2 could never have been posted in District Pune.
Procedural History
Respondent No. 2 filed Original Application No. 730 of 2012 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging his transfer order dated 2nd August 2011. The Tribunal allowed the application on 2nd August 2012. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 7699 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 26th September 2012.
Acts & Sections
