D.C.SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the order of transfer dated 28.3.2013, Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioner, a Deputy Director, is transferred from Morena to Bhopal.

(2.) Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred to Morena and joined at Morena only on 23.7.2012 and within a short span of time he is again transferred, which amounts to frequent transfer. The transfer order is also challenged on the ground that the respondent No.3 is an agent of respondent No.2 and is in connivance with respondent No.2. By placing reliance on paras (x) and (xi) of the pleadings of the writ petition, it is stated that respondents No.2 and 3 made an attempt to pressurize and blackmail the petitioner. They demanded money and when petitioner did not succumb to their pressure, they preferred false complaints and ultimately questions were asked in the State Assembly against petitioner. By placing reliance on a newspaper cutting, it is stated that on the basis of question of respondent No.2-M.L.A., the petitioner was transferred and, therefore, the transfer order is malafide in nature. By placing reliance on the representation (page 37), Shri Raghuvanshi submits that the petitioner intimated the departmental authorities that he is being pressurized by the MLA and needs protection but the department rather protecting him, transferred him which is arbitrary exercise of power.

(3.) Per Contra, Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate, submits that the transfer order is passed in administrative exigency and in public interest. He submits that the complaint alone can be a ground for transfer and unless it casts stigma, no interference is warranted. He supported the order of transfer.