[ad_1]
Bombay High Court
Devdas Kerba Chougule vs State Of Maharashtra General … on 20 June, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:24552-DB
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7830 OF 2024
Kiran Ramesh Shinde ]
Aged about 39 years, ]
Residing at 517, E ward, Plot No.34, ]
Shivaji Park, Kolhapur ] ... Petitioner.
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra, ]
General Administrative Department ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]
2. The President, ]
Industrial Court, Maharashtra, ]
Central Administrative Building, ]
Bandra East, Mumbai. ]
3. The Registrar, ]
Industrial Court, Maharashtra, ]
Central Administrative Building, ]
Bandra East, Mumbai. ] ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7831 OF 2024
Devdas Kerba Chougale ]
Aged about 40 years, ]
Having permanent address at ]
At/Post Solankur, Taluka Radhanagari, ]
District Kolhapur ]
Presently Residing at Government Quarters,]
Vichare Marg, Kolhapur 416 001. ] ... Petitioner.
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra, ]
General Administrative Department ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO 1/16
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2025.06.21
12:58:43
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
2. The President, ]
Industrial Court, Maharashtra, ]
Central Administrative building, ]
Bandra East, Mumbai. ] ... Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Aditya S. Raktade, for the Petitioner in both Petitions.
Mr. K.S. Thorat, 'B' Panel for Respondent No.1-State in WP/7830/2024.
Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for Respondent No.1-State in WP/7831/2024.
Mr. R.S. Datar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17th April, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th June, 2025.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
WRIT PETITION NO.7830 OF 2024:
1) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioner seeks a direction to permit him to continue working in the
Labour Court, Kolhapur, and not be transferred to Industrial Court, Sangli
as per the Order dated 24th May, 2024.
2) The Petitioner was appointed as a peon in Labour Court, Kolhapur,
following a due selection process, as per the Order dated 19 th May, 2010
issued by the Incharge Administrative Judge, Labour Court, Kolhapur. His
service was regularised by an Order dated 15 th September, 2014. He was
promoted to the post of Naik (Class IV Post) and further promoted to the
2/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docxpost of Bailiff (Class III Post ) by an Order dated 17th October, 2023.
3) The Petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer from Labour Court,
Kolhapur, to the Industrial Court, Sangli by impugned Order of 24 th May,
2024. He contends that, he was not due for transfer as he has not
completed five years of service as a Class III employee. He further asserts
the personal grievances of the employees were disregarded during the
transfer process, and the Government Resolution (“GR”) dated 9 th April,
2018, which prescribes Guidelines for Transfer of Employees in various
classes, was ignored. On 27th May, 2024, he submitted a representation
highlighting that he has served as a Bailiff for only seven months, which is
below the mandatory five year period outlined in the GR. Consequently, he
asserts that the transfer Order is illegal and should be revoked.
WRIT PETITION NO.7831 OF 2024:
4) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioner seeks a direction to permit him to continue working in the
Industrial Court, Kolhapur, and not be transferred to Labour Court, Solapur
as per the Order dated 24th May, 2024.
5) The Petitioner was appointed as a peon in Labour Court, Kolhapur,
following a due selection process, as per the Order dated 19 th May, 2010
issued by the Incharge Administrative Judge, Labour Court, Kolhapur. His
service was regularised and he was promoted to the post of Daftary (Class
IV Post) in the Industrial Court at Kolhapur and further promoted to the
3/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docxpost of Bailiff (Class III Post ) by an Order dated 17th October, 2023.
6) The Petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer from Industrial Court,
Kolhapur, to the Labour Court, Solapur by impugned Order of 24 th May,
2024. He contends that, he was not due for transfer as he has not
completed five years of service as a Class III employee. He further asserts
that the Government Resolution (“GR”) dated 9 th April, 2018, which
prescribes Guidelines for Transfer of Employees in various classes, was
ignored. While the employees who have completed more than three to five
years on the same post are not transferred, he who was promoted to class
III post only 7 months ago i.e. on 17th October 2023 has been transferred.
He also asserted that, his family’s life will be severely affected on account of
the said transfer. Consequently, he asserts that the transfer Order is illegal
and should be revoked.
7) Mr. Raktade, learned Advocate representing the Petitioners in
both Petitions vehemently argued that, several employees holding Class II
and Class III posts, despite completing three to five years in the same
position, were not transferred, while the Petitioners were only served seven
months as a Bailiff, was transferred without justification. He emphasized
that the Petitioners annual performance reports were outstanding and their
service record was exemplary. Despite this, the Petitioners were transferred
without any prior notice, causing them severe prejudice and inconvenience.
He maintains that the Petitioners are entitled to continue their service at
4/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
Kolhapur for at least five years, in accordance with the Maharashtra
Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in
Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (‘Transfer Act‘). He accordingly urges
for a stay on the implementation of the transfer Order, which has taken
effect on 31st May, 2024. He submitted that, the Petitioners were transferred
without prejudice to their rights and outcome of the Petition.
7.1) Mr. Raktade submitted that, the Transfer Act clearly lays down
a complete modality for transfer of Government servants. According to him
none of the provisions were followed by the Respondents. According to him
the Respondents were duty bound to have published the list of employees in
the month of January for those who were eligible for transfer in the month
of May.
7.2) He submitted that, in the present case the Respondents had
issued a circular on 21 st March, 2024, calling upon employees from class II
and class III who had completed three to five years in the same Zilla and
class IV who had completed five years at the same office to submit form A
with required details for administrative transfer. According to the
Petitioners, they had been posted as a bailiff at the said location for only
seven months and, therefore, they did not fall within the scope of this
circular, as they were entitled to continue for a minimum tenure of three
years in the class III post. Consequently, they were under no obligation to
submit the form. In any event, there were several other employees who had
5/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
completed the mandatory period in the same post who had submitted the
required form.
7.3) Learned counsel for Petitioners contended that, there was a
breach of Rule No.4 of the Transfer Act, which mandates publication of the
list of transferees. However, the Order of transfer was abruptly served upon
the Petitioners on 24th May, 2024 without publication of the list. The
impugned Order involved transfer of thirteen employees from various
districts, directing them to be relieved by 31 st May, 2024. According to the
learned Counsel, Respondent No. 2 failed to apply his mind and passed an
Order that is vague, arbitrary, baseless and devoid of legal justification. It
was submitted that, the impugned Order appears to be actuated by personal
bias, as there is no material or evidence on record to support the action
taken against the Petitioner.
7.4) Mr. Raktade further submitted that, if the Petitioners were
transferred on account of the complaint received by Respondents against
them, then such transfer Order would be in the nature of punishment, for
which they deserved to be heard before such transfers were affected. He
relied on Clause 1(C) of the Government Circular dated 27 th November,
1997 to submit that, transfer made in exigent circumstances should be to
the satisfaction of the Competent Authority and if that is so, the reason for
the same should necessarily be stated in the transfer Order which is absent
in the present case.
6/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx 7.5) Mr. Raktade submitted that, in the case of the Petitioners, the
Order of transfer was in effect a punitive action, issued without due process
and was followed by a discreet inquiry conducted thereafter. Such a
sequence of events, where punishment precedes investigation, renders the
entire action against the Petitioners illegal and contrary to principles of
natural justice.
7.6) He submitted that, Section 4 of the Transfer Act unequivocally
provides that if the employee is transferred in the middle of the
administrative year, such transfer must be supported by written reasons and
carried out only with the prior approval of the higher Authority. In the
present case, the respondents have failed to comply with these mandatory
requirements.
7.7) Mr. Raktade submitted that, even the Petitioners
representation dated 6th June 2024 was rejected without assigning any
reasons and no copy of the rejection order was furnished. Such a denial of
procedural fairness renders the entire process illegal, arbitrary, and
unsustainable in law. According to him, the impugned Order amounts to
nothing but sheer harassment of the Petitioners.
8) Mr. Raktade relied upon the judgements of this Court in the
case of Kishor Shridharrao Mhaske vs Maharashtra OBC Finance and
Development Corporation and Ors.1 and Kunal Satish Dinde vs State of
1
2023 (6) Bom. C.R. 391
7/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
Maharashtra and Anr.2 to contend that the mid – term or pre-mature special
transfer has to be strictly according to law, by a reasoned order in writing
and after the due and prior approval from the competent transferring
authority concerned for effecting such special transfer under the Act. Thus
an Order of transfer in breach of statutory obligations suffers from vices and
is unsustainable in law.
9) Mr. R.S. Datar, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3,
submitted that, the Petitioners have made a false and misleading
representation before this Court. He contended that the Petitioners
allegation of a sudden midterm transfer is factually incorrect and
deliberately misleading. The transfer in question was a part of the routine
Annual General Transfer process involving thirteen other employees and
was carried out strictly in accordance with the Government Resolution (GR)
dated 12th February, 1992.
9.1) He asserted that, the clauses of the Circular are unambiguous.
It contemplated transfers of all employees who had completed three to five
years in the Zilla, not for any post as alleged. It appears that with a view to
avoid transfer the Petitioners failed to submit the requisite form, not
because they did not fall in the criteria.
9.2) Mr. Datar, further placed on record that, by its Order dated 30 th
May, 2024 the Vacation Bench had refused to stay the transfer Order but
2
Writ Petition No.5593 of 2023 dated 19th July, 2023.
8/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
permitted the Petitioners to submit a supplementary representation to the
Respondents with a direction that it be decided within four weeks. It further
directed the Petitioners to report to the transfer post immediately, with a
caveat that his transfer would be subject to the outcome of the present
Petition.
9.3) Mr. Datar submitted that, after the Petitioners joined the
transfer post, they filed an additional representation on 6 th June, 2024. The
President Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai, being head of the
department and disciplinary authority, conducted a discreet enquiry into the
complaints against the Petitioners. Based on the findings thereon, an Order
dated 4th July, 2024 was passed, rejecting the representation of the
Petitioners dated 27th May, 2024 and 6th June, 2024. The Order was
communicated to the Petitioners by a covering letter dated 4 th July, 2024.
The Order recorded a finding that the Petitioners had misbehaved with
Advocates and had disregarded the directions from the Judicial Officer,
while performing his duties. Therefore, the Respondents had rightly
exercised its powers and transferred the Petitioners from office of the
Labour Court, Kolhapur to the office of the Industrial Court, Sangli in
accordance with the GR dated 27th November, 1997 and 9th April, 2018 as
well as the Transfer Act.
9.4) Mr. Datar submitted that, the judgements in the case of Kishor
Shridharrao Mhaske vs Maharashtra OBC Finance and Development
9/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
Corporation and Ors. 3 and Kunal Satish Dinde (supa) were not applicable
to the facts of the present case.
9.5) Mr. Datar emphasized that, the transfer Order was legally valid
and appropriately executed. He argued that the Petitions lacked merit and
thus deserved to be dismissed with costs, in the interest of justice.
10) We have heard both counsel and perused the record and
proceedings before us. Having considered the arguments and submissions,
we find that the Petitions lacked merit and are liable to be dismissed for the
reasons stated hereafter.
11) We are unable to agree with any of the Petitioners contentions.
In our view, specious pleas are raised only to avoid the annual general
transfer.
12) The transfer order explicitly highlights that, the transfer was an
annual transfer. It was not a mid-term transfer as alleged by the Petitioners.
In our view, by raising the above contention, the Petitioners attempted to
mislead this Court. The GRs’ make it abundantly clear that the
administration is empowered to transfer employees for its administrative
convenience.
13) It is pertinent to note that, though there were complaints
against the Petitioners received by the Respondents the transfer was not
effected. In fact, the Petitioners were simply transferred in the normal
3
2023 (6) Bom. C.R. 391
10/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
course for administrative convenience and not based on the complaints as
such. According to us, the transfer was within the region and therefore the
employee cannot allege the said transfer was in guise of a punishment.
Furthermore, the impugned transfer is an administrative decision taken in
the normal course in consonance with the Circular and the GRs.
14) Petitioners’ reliance on the Transfer Act, 2005 is also misplaced.
The Act primarily governs the transfer of Government employees, whereas
the Petitioners, being a judicial employee, is governed by separate
administrative rules.
Section 2 (f) of the Maharashtra Act reads as under:
“2(f) “Government servant” means
The provisions of the Transfer Act do not apply mutatis
mutandis to the judicial employees. However, even with
respect to Section 4 of the Transfer Act, sub-section 5
permits the transfer of a Government servant before the
completion of his prescribed tenure in a given post, provided
that reasons are recorded in writing and prior approval of
the immediate superior authority is obtained.”
15) Thus, the Petitioners contention that, the mandate of Section 4
is violated is based on a misreading of the Section. We are, therefore,
unable to accept the argument that a government servant cannot be
transferred before completing a tenure of three years in a given post. In our
view, such a contention is extreme and untenable. The Sections 4(1) & 4(5)
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
of the Transfer Act are reproduced hereunder:
“4(1) No Government servant shall ordinarily be
transferred unless he has completed his tenure of posting as
provided in section 3.”
4(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3
of this section, the competent authority may, in special cases,
after recording reasons in writing and with the prior approval
of the immediately superior. Transferring Authority
mentioned in the table of section 6, transfer a Government
servant before completion of his tenure of post.”
16) The use of the phrase “shall ordinarily” implies that while the
norm is prescribed, deviations are permissible in exceptional circumstances,
which are expressly contemplated under sub-section 5 .
17) The words “shall ordinarily” have to be construed in a manner
to serve as an exception to the Rule and therefore sub-section 5 has
provided for such exceptions.
18) The GR dated 12th February, 1992 outlines guidelines for the
transfer of Class III employees, specifying regional seniority and transfer
protocols. Paragraph 9 of Affidavit of Smt. Usha A. Kulkarni dated 1 st
August, 2024 clearly states that, a Class III employee of the Pune region,
could be transferred to any district such as Pune, Nashik, Solapur, Sangli
and Kolhapur, among others being co-regions in the State of Maharashtra as
per the direction of Hon’ble High Court. Consequently, in our view, the
12/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
transfer was in accordance with this regional classification and was within
the administrative discretion of the Competent Authority.
19) Moreover, another GR dated 27th November, 1997, provides
guidelines regarding annual transfer of employees from one office to
another as well as provisions empowering competent authority to transfer
government employees even before completing their regular tenure of three
years on the same post, only caveat being that reasons must be provided
and recorded and furthermore that it’s done in exceptional cases.
20) It is apparent that, although the President of the Industrial
Court, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, who is the Competent Authority and
Disciplinary Authority, had received written complaints from the President
of the Labour Law Practice Association, Kolhapur, and Bar Association of
Industrial Labour Court, Kolhapur alleging misconduct by some Class III
employees, including the Petitioners, who had remained posted in the same
office for eight to eleven years he had not acted thereon and immediately
passed any transfer orders of the Petitioners. Therefore, the allegation that
the transfer was triggered solely by a complaint dated 18 th April, 2024 is
wholly misconceived and factually untenable. The Order dated 29 th May
2024 was passed by the incharge President of the Industrial Court, Mumbai,
Maharashtra in accordance with the GR dated 27 th November, 1997 and 12th
February, 1992 on the Petitioners representation dated 27 th May, 2024 and
6th June, 2024 requesting to retain them in the office and for cancellation of
13/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
his transfer order.
21) The Judgments in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr V/s.
Ramesh Chandra Mashruwala,4 Laxmikant Dhal & Ors. V/s. State of Orissa
& Ors.,5 R. M. Gurjar & Anr. V/s. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. ,6 Renu & Ors
V/s. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi & Anr. 7 relied upon
by the Respondent are not relevant for the present case in as much as the
Petitioners have not raised any dispute with regard to the the High Court’s
authority and control of the subordinate court under Article 235 of the
Constitution of India.
22) The Judgements relied upon by Mr. Raktade in the case of
Kishor Shridharrao Mhaske vs Maharashtra OBC Finance and Development
Corporation and Ors. 8 and Kunal Satish Dinde (supra) are applicable only
to Government employees and not applicable to judicial employees. In our
view it was apparently an attempt to mislead the Court.
23) In our view, if an employee in the judicial service adopts such a
pedantic and defiant attitude towards service obligations, then such
conduct is unbecoming of a judicial employee. Persons like the Petitioners
do not deserve to remain in the service in any judicial institution and
appropriate action for their removal ought to be considered. The complaints
made by the Bar Association cannot be brushed aside or diluted. We
4
(1977) 2 SCC 12
5
(1988) Supp SCC 504
6
(1992) 4 SCC 10
7
(2014) 14 SCC 50
8
2023 (6) Bom. C.R. 391
14/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
consider it necessary to carry such complaints to their logical conclusion. It
is not the case that Bar Associations are routinely filing frivolous
complaints. On the contrary, the nature of the complaints in the present
case is grave. Allegations of misbehavior with Advocates and accepting
favours are matters that strike at the very root of integrity and cannot be
tolerated.
24) It must be reiterated that service of an employee in judiciary
stands on a higher pedestal than ordinary government service. It demands
the high standards of integrity, humility, and service to the public. They are
to serve the system akin to how nurses serve patients–with patience,
dignity, and compassion. The Administration, in our view, had taken a
reasonable and appropriate decision to transfer the Petitioners in
administrative interest. This transfer was in fact beneficial to the
Petitioners, preventing a harsher course of action. Despite the permissibility
of such transfers under the Rules, the Petitioners chose to challenge the
same, solely on the ground that they had been posted as a Bailiff for only
seven months. There exists no rule that entitles him to continue in a specific
post on that basis. More importantly, they had been posted in the Labour
Court–albeit in different capacities–for over ten years, a fact that cannot
be overlooked, especially in light of the written complaints against them.
26) Upon perusal of the Petitioners rejoinder affidavit, we find that
the tone and tenor of the averments are inappropriate and derogatory. The
15/16
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
apn 10-aswp-7830-2024+J.docx
language used reflects an unwarranted arrogance and an inflated sense of
superiority over the Administration. We express our strong disapproval of
the manner in which the Petition is drafted.
28) In our considered view, the Petitioners conduct, and the serious
nature of complaints warrant administrative action against them. The
transfer is a consequence of service and was a reasonable measure to
maintain discipline within the judicial establishment, without resorting to
immediate disciplinary proceedings.
29) Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned
Order of transfer.
30) The Petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly
dismissed.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 16/16 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2025 03:16:56 :::
[ad_2]
Source link