The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Wireless Division, Mumbai) challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) dated 02/05/2022, which had directed payment of pay and allowances to a Police Head Constable for the period of his absence after his transfer order was quashed. The Court ruled that while the transfer order was technically invalid due to improper constitution of the Police Establishment Board, the constable's willful absence from duty during the transfer period was unjustified, and the denial of pay was appropriate.

1. Background:

• The respondent, a Police Head Constable, was transferred from Mumbai to Dhule on 30/05/2019.
• He filed an Original Application challenging the transfer and sought interim relief, which was denied by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) on 12/06/2019.
• Despite this, the respondent did not join the transferred post and remained absent for 271 days (02/06/2019 to 27/02/2020).

2. Quashing of Transfer:

• On 20/01/2020, the MAT set aside the transfer order, citing non-compliance with Section 22J-3 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, due to improper constitution of the Police Establishment Board.
• The respondent was allowed to rejoin his original post on 28/02/2020.

3. Claim for Pay and Allowances:

• The respondent sought payment for the period of absence.
• The Deputy Commissioner of Police refused the claim, treating the absence as unauthorized under Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981.
• MAT, in its order dated 02/05/2022, directed payment of salary for the period of absence, holding that since the transfer order was quashed, it should be treated as non-existent.

4. High Court Ruling:

• The High Court quashed MAT's decision, ruling that the respondent's absence was unjustified.
• The Court emphasized that despite the technical invalidity of the transfer order, the respondent, as a member of a disciplined force, was obligated to join the transferred post until the order was quashed.
• His failure to join duty after denial of interim relief was condemned.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 22J-3: The provision mandates proper constitution of the Police Establishment Board for transfer orders.

• Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, Rule 29: Addresses the consequences of willful absence from duty after expiry of joining time.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court ruled that a government servant, particularly one in a disciplined force like the police, cannot disobey a transfer order after being denied interim relief. The subsequent quashing of the order did not entitle the employee to claim salary for the period of unauthorized absence. The Court held that the respondent was obligated to join his new posting and could not take advantage of technical flaws in the transfer order to justify his absence.