Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kishor Shridharrao Mhaske, was employed as a District Manager with the Maharashtra OBC Finance & Development Corporation, a government sector organization. He was initially appointed as a Clerk in 2000, made permanent, and promoted to Accountant in 2003 and District Manager in 2005. On 30-05-2012, he was transferred from Mumbai to Raigad by an order dated 30-05-2012. The petitioner challenged the transfer order on the grounds that it was malafide, passed without notice, and in violation of the service rules. He contended that the transfer was not in public interest but to accommodate another employee, Shri Anil V. Murar, who was the third respondent. The petitioner had made a representation against the transfer, which was not considered. The respondents argued that the transfer was in public interest and as per the rules. The court examined the facts and found that the transfer order was passed hastily, without following the proper procedure, and without considering the petitioner's representation. The court noted that the transfer was not communicated to the petitioner and he came to know about it only when he was relieved. The court held that the transfer was malafide and set aside the impugned order, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at his original place of posting.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Malafide Transfer - Transfer order set aside as it was passed without notice, without considering pending representation, and with oblique motive to accommodate another employee - Held that transfer must be in public interest and not for collateral purposes (Paras 2-10). B) Service Law - Transfer - Compliance with Service Rules - Transfer order must be in accordance with the service rules and regulations of the corporation - Held that the impugned transfer violated the rules as it was not preceded by proper procedure (Paras 5-8). C) Service Law - Transfer - Communication and Service of Order - Transfer order must be properly communicated and served to the employee - Held that the order was not served on the petitioner and he came to know about it only when he was relieved (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order dated 30-05-2012 transferring the petitioner from Mumbai to Raigad is legal, valid, and in accordance with the service rules and regulations of the respondent corporation.
Final Decision
The impugned transfer order dated 30-05-2012 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue at his original place of posting.
Law Points
- Transfer order must be passed in public interest and not for collateral purposes
- Transfer order must comply with service rules and regulations
- Transfer order must be communicated and served properly
- Transfer order must consider pending representations
- Transfer order must not be malafide
