MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is being filed challenging the order dated 23.6.2020 passed by the respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Datia to District Morena. It is submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is within a short span of 9 months, therefore, the same falls under the purview of frequent transfers. It is further argued that the transfer of the petitioner is made just to accommodate the respondent no.4 as the respondent no.4 is politically influential person and just to post him at Datia the petitioner has been subjected to transfer.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Asstt. Statistical Officer in the year 1994 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Child Development Project Officer in the year 1998. He was made Asstt. Director in the year 2013. And from the date of initial appointment the petitioner is discharging his duties with utmost devotion and sincerity. The petitioner could not be further promoted owing to the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the cases of promotions and in pursuance to the same the State Government has not convened the D.P.C. On 20th December, 2013 the petitioner was posted at Morena in the office of Joint Director and was transferred in December, 2015 to District Bhind, where he continued to work up to September, 2019. Thereafter the petitioner has been transferred from District Bhind to District Datia vide order dated 14.9.2019 Annexure P/2. In pursuance to the transfer order the petitioner was relieved from District Bhind on 18.9.2019 and assumed the charge of the D.P.O on 19th September, 2019. It is submitted that within a short span of 9 months the petitioner has again been subjected to transfer by the impugned order, just to accommodate the respondent no.4, who is a politically influential person. It is argued that the entire country is going through the phase of pandemic COVID-19 and the petitioner was working at District Datia with utmost devotion and sincerity and was taking care of the Woman and Child Development Department, wherein various beneficiaries were in flow during this COVID-19 pandemic, but all of a sudden the petitioner has been subjected to transfer on political instructions with an ulterior motive to accommodate the respondent no.4, who has already worked at District Datia for last several years.

(3.) The petitioner has further pointed out that the transfer order is in-violation of clause 11.11 of the transfer policy, wherein it is categorically mentioned that in case of complaints transfer being made on the complaints the same should be considered only when the complaint is investigated and final opinion is given regarding the guilt of the employee. The petitioner has also preferred a detailed representation to the respondents authorities highlighting all the facts