GANGA RAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 10-08-2018 whereby the petitioner, a Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Narsinghpur, was attached in Regional Office Jabalpur.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer order on the ground that the petitioner is subjected to frequent transfer/shifting. By order dated 05-07-2016, the petitioner was transferred from Bhanpura (District Mandsaur) to Katni. Thereafter, by order dated 07-04-2018 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner was transferred to Narsinghpur. Within a short span of time, by impugned order dated 10-08-2018 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner was attached to Regional Office, Jabalpur.

(3.) Shri Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of AIR 1986 SC 1955 (B. Vardha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.) argued that such frequent transfer must be deprecated and set aside. Secondly, the petitioner was attached to Regional Office whereas as per GAD Circular dated 25-08-2000 (Annexure P/6), such attachment is wholly impermissible. Thirdly, petitioner's attachment is justified by the respondents on the basis of two complaints i.e. Annexure R/3 and R/4. Annexure R/3 shows that since the petitioner tried to maintain discipline in the office, his subordinate employees who were largely indisciplined persons were annoyed. There is no allegation of financial irregularities against the petitioner in Annexure R/3. Shri Uday Kumar contends that so far Annexure R/4 dated 21- 05-2018 is concerned, this is a complaint preferred by some industry, which was found to be incorrect which is evident by Annexure P/10 dated 01-06-2018. In this letter, the said industry has clarified that no complaint against the petitioner was preferred by it and it has not complained about the petitioner's behavior and performance. Lastly, Shri Uday Kumar submits that impugned order is malafide in nature and, therefore, it may be interference with.