SURENDRA SINGH GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sujoy Paul, J.

(2.) BY filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the transfer order dated 28.3.2012 whereby petitioner is transferred from Mihona, Bhind to the Head Office, Bhind. Learned senior counsel submits that petitioner was earlier transferred by order dated 24.2.2012 (Annexure P -4). However, in answer to a star question in the State Assembly, it was found that complaints against the petitioner was found to be incorrect. Thus, the said transfer order dated 24.2.2012 was cancelled by order dated 12.3.2012. The learned counsel submits that because of malafide action of respondent No.4, who is very close to Dr. Govind Singh, another question was raised which can be seen from Annexure P -3 and pursuant to that the petitioner has been transferred. The learned counsel submits that petitioner cannot be subjected to continuous complaints once he is exonerated as per Annexure P -5. Learned counsel further submits that transfer order is malafide and liable to be interfered with. Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Dy. G.A. submits that petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 55 (2) of the M.P. Co -operative Societies Act and supported the order.

(3.) THE transfer order can be interfered with only if it violates any statutory provision (not circular or policy guideline), it is proved to be a malafide order, it changes the service conditions of an employee to his detriment or passed by an incompetent authority. In the present case, Annexure P -8 is an executive instruction that too is applicable for the State Government employees. The petitioner is not a State Government employee and, therefore, Annexure P -8 has no application in his case. Even otherwise, it is only an executive instruction.