Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the transfer orders of Class III judicial employees from Kolhapur to other districts. The Court held that the transfers were routine administrative decisions falling within the powers of the competent authority and not punitive in nature. It emphasized that “integrity, humility, and service to the public” are essential attributes of judicial employees, and that the transfer was “reasonable and appropriate,” especially in light of serious complaints. The Court condemned the petitioners’ “pedantic and defiant attitude” and found their conduct “unbecoming of judicial employees,” warranting further administrative scrutiny.
Facts
Two Class III judicial employees who were serving as Bailiffs in the Labour and Industrial Courts at Kolhapur were transferred by an order dated 24 May 2024 to Sangli and Solapur, respectively. Both had been promoted to their current Class III roles only in October 2023, seven months prior to the transfer. They argued that the transfer was premature and violated the minimum tenure norms outlined under the Government Resolution dated 9 April 2018 and the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.
Issues
- Whether the transfer orders violated the minimum tenure provisions under the Transfer Act and relevant GRs.
- Whether the transfer was punitive and motivated by bias due to complaints against the petitioners.
- Whether judicial employees fall within the scope of the Transfer Act, 2005.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that:
- They had not completed the mandatory five-year tenure in their Class III posts and thus were not eligible for transfer.
- Other similarly placed employees were not transferred, indicating selective treatment.
- No list of eligible transferees was published in January 2024, as required by the Transfer Act.
- The transfer was punitive, triggered by complaints against them, and was issued without giving them an opportunity of hearing.
- The rejection of their representations without reasons violated principles of natural justice.
- The Government Resolutions and the Transfer Act were breached.
They relied on Kishor Shridharrao Mhaske v. Maharashtra OBC Finance and Development Corporation and Kunal Satish Dinde v. State of Maharashtra to argue that mid-term transfers are impermissible unless justified.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Respondents contended that:
- The transfer was part of the routine Annual General Transfer process applicable to all employees who had served three to five years within the same region.
- The petitioners’ claim that their transfer was sudden or mid-term was incorrect and misleading.
- The petitioners attempted to avoid transfer by not submitting the mandatory forms.
- Written complaints were indeed received but the transfer was not based on those complaints alone.
- A discreet enquiry was conducted and found substance in the allegations of misbehaviour and insubordination by the petitioners.
- Judicial employees are governed by a distinct administrative regime, not the Transfer Act.
- The petitioners’ rejoinder affidavit reflected an arrogant tone and derogatory language against the administration.
Analysis of the Law
The Court closely analyzed Section 4 of the Transfer Act and emphasized that:
- The word “shall ordinarily” indicates that while fixed tenure is the norm, exceptions are permissible.
- Sub-section 5 of Section 4 allows mid-term transfers for administrative reasons, with written justification and approval from the competent authority.
- Government Resolutions dated 12 February 1992 and 27 November 1997, which allow regional transfers and transfers based on complaints or administrative convenience, were applicable.
- The Transfer Act does not apply “mutatis mutandis” to judicial employees, who are governed under the High Court’s administrative control.
Precedent Analysis
The Court held that:
- Judgments in Kishor Shridharrao Mhaske and Kunal Satish Dinde applied to government servants, not judicial employees, and thus were not applicable here.
- Judgments cited by the Respondents such as State of Gujarat v. Ramesh Chandra Mashruwala, Laxmikant Dhal v. State of Orissa, R.M. Gurjar v. High Court of Gujarat, and Renu v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari were not directly relevant since the petitioners had not questioned the High Court’s control under Article 235 of the Constitution.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court concluded:
- The transfer was a legitimate annual administrative transfer, not a punitive action.
- Petitioners had been posted in Kolhapur in various capacities for over a decade, contrary to norms.
- Serious complaints from Bar Associations regarding misbehaviour and acceptance of favours were on record.
- Their conduct was contrary to the high standards expected from judicial employees.
- The representation rejecting their transfer request was adequately reasoned and consistent with applicable GRs.
- Their continued defiance showed a “pedantic” and “defiant” attitude.
Conclusion
The Court dismissed both petitions, finding no merit in the challenge to the transfer orders. It observed:
“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 Court affirmed that judicial service demands a higher standard and that the transfer was justified and in public interest.
Implications
- The judgment reaffirms the power of judicial administration to effect transfers in public interest without rigid adherence to tenure norms.
- It clarifies that the Transfer Act, 2005 does not apply to judicial employees.
- Courts will not interfere with transfers unless mala fides or procedural violations are clearly established.
Referred Judgments and Their Role
- Kishor Shridharrao Mhaske v. Maharashtra OBC Finance and Development Corporation: Cited by petitioners for challenging mid-term transfers; held inapplicable as it pertained to government employees, not judicial staff.
- Kunal Satish Dinde v. State of Maharashtra: Cited for similar reasons and found inapplicable for same grounds.
- Other judgments (Ramesh Chandra Mashruwala, Renu, Laxmikant Dhal, etc.) were noted but held irrelevant as the authority of the High Court under Article 235 was not disputed in the present case.
FAQs
1. Can judicial employees be transferred before completing their tenure under general transfer policies?
Yes. Judicial employees are governed by separate administrative guidelines, and mid-term transfers are permissible under GRs if reasons are recorded and approved by competent authority.
2. Does the Transfer Act, 2005 apply to judicial employees?
No. The Court clarified that judicial employees are not governed by the Transfer Act but by specific GRs and administrative rules under the High Court’s jurisdiction.
3. Is a transfer order invalid if issued shortly after complaints are received?
Not necessarily. If the transfer is part of a routine administrative process and not based solely on complaints, it will be upheld. Here, the transfer was found to be administrative and not punitive.
