Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Santosh Machhindra Thite, a Deputy Collector in the Government of Maharashtra, challenged his transfer order dated 7th June 2018 before the Bombay High Court. He was initially posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi, District Thane on 17th November 2015. Before completing his normal tenure of three years, he was transferred to the post of Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition No.4), Mumbai Suburban District. The transfer was part of a three-way shuffle involving the second respondent, Mohan Naladkar, and the third respondent, Smt. Archana Kadam. The petitioner alleged that the transfer was malafide, punitive, and without following the procedure under Section 4(5) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, which requires recording of reasons for mid-term transfers. The State contended that the transfer was in public interest and based on administrative exigencies. The court analyzed the facts and found that the transfer was effected without recording reasons and was intended to punish the petitioner for a complaint made against him. The court held that the transfer was not in public interest but punitive, and quashed the order. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue in his original post.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Mid-term Transfer - Section 4(5) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 - The petitioner, a Deputy Collector, was transferred before completion of three-year tenure. The court examined whether the transfer was punitive and malafide. Held that the transfer was effected without recording reasons as required under Section 4(5) and was not in public interest but punitive, hence quashed (Paras 1-20). B) Service Law - Malafide Transfer - Burden of Proof - The petitioner alleged malafides based on the timing and nature of transfer. The court found that the transfer was a result of a complaint and was intended to punish the petitioner. Held that the burden shifts to the State to justify the transfer, which it failed to do (Paras 10-18). C) Service Law - Transfer Policy - Normal Tenure - The government's transfer policy prescribes a normal tenure of three years. The transfer before completion of tenure without exceptional circumstances is invalid. Held that the transfer order was arbitrary and violative of the policy (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order dated 7th June 2018 transferring the petitioner before completion of normal tenure was malafide and punitive, and whether it violated the provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 7th August 2018 passed by the learned Administrative Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The order of transfer dated 7th June 2018 insofar as it pertains to the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi, District Thane.
Law Points
- Transfer order must be in public interest and not punitive
- Malafide transfer can be challenged
- Section 4(5) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act
- 2005 requires recording of reasons for mid-term transfer
- Transfer policy must be followed
