(1.) With consent the matter is heard finally.
(2.) The petitioner challenges the order of his transfer on two counts. Firstly, it is challenged on the ground that petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer. It is contended that it was only on 15-06-2010 that the petitioner was transferred from Betul to Bhopal in administrative exigency and within six months of his stay at Bhopal is again being transferred from Bhopal to Tikamgarh in administrative exigency. Secondly, it is urged that though the order of transfer is nomenclatured as on administrative ground it suffers from colourable exercise of power.
(3.) While propitiating first submission it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it is within the power of the respondents/State to transfer its employees from one place to another in exigency of service because the transfer is not a condition but an incident of service. It is submitted that the power of transfer should not be misused by the respondents and in a case where an employee is required to be transferred frequently, it must be for cogent reason. It is contended that the reason assigned by the respondents for transferring the petitioner from Bhopal to Tikamgarh within a period of six months though being administrative, however, the return filed by the respondents reflects that it is on the basis of complaint lodged against the petitioner at the behest of a District Head of a particular political party. Placing reliance on Annexure-R/1, which is a document annexed by the respondents along with the letter dated 28-01-2011, it is contended by the petitioner that because the petitioner has taken action against the Sweat-meat traders he has been made scape-goat on the basis of complaint lodged by the District Head of a political party. It is contended that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner on the basis of such complaint is not a symbol of good governance as it reflects interference by the political party in day to day administration of the State. It is urged that such an action is impermissible in law and, therefore, the order of transfer be quashed.