Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary (Housing Department) and others, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment dated 13 October 2014 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, in Original Application No.839 of 2014. The Tribunal had set aside the midterm transfer order dated 30 August 2014 of Respondent No.1, Dr. (Ms.) Padmashri Shriram Bainade, a Deputy Collector. The basic events were that on 16 August 2014, a letter proposing the transfer was submitted to the Principal Secretary, Housing Department. On 19 August 2014, the Under Secretary submitted a note proposing transfer, and the Deputy Secretary approved it. On 20 August 2014, the file reached the Chief Minister's office and was approved the same day. On 21 August 2014, the file returned to the Principal Secretary, and on 22 August 2014, the Principal Secretary sent an office note. The transfer order was issued on 30 August 2014. The Tribunal set aside the transfer on the grounds that it was a midterm transfer without following the procedure under the Maharashtra Government Servants (Transfer) Rules, 2003, and that no opportunity of hearing was given to the employee. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that transfer is an incident of service and courts/tribunals should not interfere unless mala fides or violation of statutory rules are proved. The High Court found that the transfer was approved by the Chief Minister, who is the competent authority, and that the rules do not mandate a hearing before transfer. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order, and restored the transfer order. The court directed that the transfer be implemented within two weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Midterm Transfer - Maharashtra Government Servants (Transfer) Rules, 2003 - The State challenged the Tribunal's order setting aside a midterm transfer of a Deputy Collector. The High Court held that transfer is an incident of service and courts/tribunals should not interfere unless mala fides or violation of statutory rules are proved. The transfer order was approved by the Chief Minister, which is sufficient compliance with the rules. The Tribunal erred in interfering with the transfer order without finding any mala fides or violation of rules. (Paras 2-10) B) Service Law - Transfer - Opportunity of Hearing - Natural Justice - The Tribunal set aside the transfer order on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the employee before passing the midterm transfer. The High Court held that transfer is an administrative function and no prior hearing is required unless the rules specifically provide for it. The Maharashtra Government Servants (Transfer) Rules, 2003 do not mandate a hearing before transfer. (Paras 11-15) C) Service Law - Transfer - Competent Authority - The Tribunal held that the transfer order was not passed by the competent authority. The High Court found that the transfer was approved by the Chief Minister, who is the competent authority under the rules. The file movement showed proper approval by the Chief Minister. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was justified in setting aside the midterm transfer order of Respondent No.1 on the ground that it was passed without following the procedure under the Maharashtra Government Servants (Transfer) Rules, 2003 and without affording opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 13 October 2014, and restored the transfer order dated 30 August 2014. The court directed that the transfer be implemented within two weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incident of service
- Courts/Tribunals should not interfere with transfer orders unless mala fides or violation of statutory rules
- Midterm transfer does not require prior consultation with the employee
- Approval by Chief Minister is sufficient compliance with rules
