K K TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is employed and presently posted as Chief Supervisor (Cadre Officer Grade III) in District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., at Hoshangabad. The petitioner came on transfer to Hoshangabad from Tikamgarh only under order passed on 24.7.1996. "Within only a year and in midsession, by the impugned order dated 31,7.1997 (Annx. P-4) the petitioner has been transferred from Hoshangabad to Damoh and in his place by order of the same date (Annx. P-5) N.R. Mandloi respondent No. 4. who was transferred on 30.6.1997 from Chhatarpur to Damoh has been transferred by the order (described as an 'amendment' to earlier order of transfer) to Hoshangabad in place of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 had approached him with proposal to co-operate in their mutual transfer as the latter was interested in getting posted to Hoshangabad. The petitioner declined to get disturbed from the place of his present posting. It has been averred in the petition that the respondent No. 4 then approached the concerned Minister in the department as also the Managing Director of the Apex Bank at Bhopal,

(2.) Learned Counsel Shri A.K. Tiwari appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been disturbed from bis present place of posting within a year only to accommodate respondent No. 4 who has brought ministerial influence in getting himself posted to Hoshangabad and sending out the petitioner to Damoh. It is submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers. In August, 1995 he came from Panna to Tikamgarh. In July, 1996 he was sent from Tikamgarh to Hoshangabad, the present place of his posting, and by impugned order in July, 1997 he has again been transferred to Damoh only to accommodate respondent No. 4 who desired to go to Hoshangabad in place of his original posting to Damoh. The petitioner has protested against his transfer and for that purpose made a representation on 14.8.1997 (Annx. P-7) to the Managing Director of the Apex Bank. The petitioner has not yet received any decision on his representation.

(3.) The petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting remedy under Section 55 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act of raising a dispute before the appropriate Co-operative Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been disturbed on the basis of the ministerial influence brought upon through the Managing Director of the Apex Bank, the officer authorised to decide dispute under Section 55 of the Act may not be able to give him justice.