Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Tulshiram Shinde, a Chief Engineer with Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (MSETCL), challenged an office order dated 26th October 2017 transferring him from Mumbai to Nagpur. The petitioner contended that the transfer was in violation of the MSETCL Transfer Policy, which stipulates that transfers during the academic year should be avoided unless in public interest or due to administrative exigencies. The petitioner's son was in the midst of his academic year, and the transfer would cause hardship. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents, but it was not considered before issuing the transfer order. The respondents argued that the transfer was necessitated by administrative requirements and that the policy allowed transfers in public interest. The court analyzed the transfer policy and found that the respondents had not invoked the exception for mid-academic year transfers nor provided any compelling reason. The court held that the transfer order was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice as the petitioner's representation was not considered. The court quashed the transfer order and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation afresh in accordance with the policy. The judgment emphasizes that transfer orders must comply with departmental policies and that employees' personal circumstances, especially those affecting children's education, must be given due weight.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Transfer Policy - MSETCL Transfer Policy - The court examined whether the transfer of the petitioner, a Chief Engineer, from Mumbai to Nagpur was in compliance with the MSETCL Transfer Policy, which provides that transfers during the academic year should be avoided unless in public interest or due to administrative exigencies. The court held that the transfer was arbitrary as it did not consider the petitioner's representation regarding his son's ongoing academic year and the policy's exception for mid-academic year transfers was not invoked. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Consideration of Representation - The court held that the respondents failed to consider the petitioner's representation against the transfer, which violated principles of natural justice. The transfer order was set aside as it was passed without giving due weight to the petitioner's personal circumstances and the policy guidelines. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order dated 26th October 2017 transferring the petitioner from Mumbai to Nagpur is arbitrary and violative of the MSETCL Transfer Policy, particularly in view of the petitioner's son's academic year and the policy's provisions regarding mid-academic year transfers.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the office order dated 26th October 2017 transferring the petitioner. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation afresh in accordance with the MSETCL Transfer Policy and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.
Law Points
- Transfer order must comply with departmental transfer policy
- principles of natural justice
- consideration of family circumstances
- mid-academic year transfer not permissible without compelling reasons
