Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Rangnath Barde, a Police Head Constable serving at Aurangabad (Rural), was transferred to Kannad by an order dated 22nd December 2017. He challenged the transfer before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Aurangabad Bench, by filing Original Application No.465 of 2017, which was dismissed. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the transfer was malafide, punitive, and in violation of the transfer policy, as he had been transferred mid-academic year and his children's education would be affected. He also alleged that the transfer was at the behest of a local politician. The respondents, State of Maharashtra and police authorities, defended the transfer as a routine administrative measure in public interest, denying any malafides. The court, after hearing both sides, held that transfer is an incident of service and the court's interference under Article 226 is limited. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove malafides or violation of any statutory rules. The Tribunal's findings were based on material on record and were not perverse. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the transfer order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Administrative Transfer - Routine Transfer - The petitioner, a Police Head Constable, challenged his transfer from Aurangabad to Kannad on grounds of malafides and violation of transfer policy. The court held that transfer is an incident of service and the order was passed in public interest. The court found no malafides or violation of rules, and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Interference with Transfer Orders - The court reiterated that the High Court under Article 226 does not sit in appeal over transfer orders and can interfere only if the order is malafide, in violation of statutory rules, or passed by an incompetent authority. The petitioner failed to establish any such ground. (Paras 5-8) C) Administrative Law - Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal - Findings of Fact - The Tribunal's finding that the transfer was not malafide and was in public interest was based on material on record. The High Court declined to re-appreciate evidence and upheld the Tribunal's order. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Aurangabad to Kannad was malafide, punitive, or in violation of any statutory rules, warranting interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 22nd December 2017 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incident of service
- Transfer order cannot be interfered with unless malafide or in violation of statutory rules
- Writ court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited in transfer matters
- Administrative Tribunal's findings on facts are binding unless perverse
