SHEIKH MOHAMMED MEHBOOB Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.7.2012, by which the petitioner, a Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, has been transferred from Panagar to Bhind, mainly on the ground that on account of malafides of respondent No.4 against whom the action was initiated by the petitioner, untimely proposal was sent for transfer of the petitioner and only on account of such malafides since the petitioner has been transferred, therefore, he is constrained to approach this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

(2.) : Brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner, holder of a substantive post of Block Development Officer, was transferred on 2.12.2009 from Narsinghpur and was posted as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Panagar. The petitioner joined the duties in the month of January 2010 and started working. Without there being any rhyme or reason, in just less than a year period, an order of transfer was issued in respect of petitioner transferring him from Panagar to Barghat District Seoni on 25.8.2010. Some sort of representation was made by the petitioner which was considered by the State Government and on 1.10.2010, the order of transfer of the petitioner to Barghat was cancelled and he was allowed to continue at Panagar. The respondent No.4, being a member of Janpad Panchayat was also included in the Purchase Committee. For the purposes of performing the marriages of the girls of poor persons, the State Government started a Scheme and for the said purposes certain amounts were sanctioned. Certain gifts were to be given to said brides at the time of performance of marriage on behalf of the State Government. Since the marriage was to be performed at Panagar, Janpad Panchayat was required to make purchase. Being a member in the Purchase Committee, purchase order was given to the firm of the respondent No.4. Sub -standard articles were supplied of which when the complaint was made, an enquiry was conducted. Since the petitioner was the Chief Executive Officer, he submitted the report in that respect, the respondent No.4 threatened the petitioner to dire consequences of which immediately a FIR was registered. Action was initiated against the respondent No.4 and out of the said malafides, since the respondent No.4 is a member of the Ruling Party, complaint was made against the petitioner and immediately an order of transfer was issued. There was a huge objection in respect of such an order of transfer as instead of taking any action against the respondent No.4, the petitioner was sought to be transferred, and respondent No.4 was protected, as he was in fact visiting the house of the Minister even when a FIR was registered against him but was not arrested by police. Ultimately, when the people at large have raised the objections, the action was initiated against the respondent No.4. He was removed from the post of member of the Janpad Panchayat, but against such order, he preferred the revision before the State Government and the interim stay was granted to the respondent No.4. This being so, it is alleged that purely on malafides, the order of transfer was issued against the petitioner, therefore, the same was bad in law and was liable to be quashed.

(3.) : The respondents have filed their return and have denied the allegations made by the petitioner. It is said by them in their return that the order of transfer of the petitioner is administrative only and strictly in accordance to the provisions of the transfer policy made by the State Government. It is emphatically contended by them that the transfer of the petitioner does not suffer from malafide. However, it is contended that the respondent No.4 was also removed from the post of member of Janpad Panchayat and, therefore, it has been said that the respondent No.4 was not so nfluential to put pressure on the respondents to transfer the petitioner. It is contended that allegations have been made by the petitioner against the respondent No.4 on account of disputes in between the petitioner and the respondent No.4, but such allegations are baseless as the order of transfer issued against the petitioner is purely on administrative grounds. It is contended that the respondents have taken action against the respondent No.4 in accordance to law and, therefore, such malafides are not made out. It is contended that the petition being wholly misconceived deserves to be dismissed.