1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5200 OF 2009 Shivaji s/o Vishwanath Giri Age: 51 Yrs., occu. Service, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, (General) Zilla Parishad,Hingoli, District Hingoli. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Hingoli. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SR Barlinge, Advocate for Petitioner; Mrs.AV Gondhalekar,AGP for Resp.Nos. 1 & 2. Mrs.MB Bharaswadkar, Adv. for Resp.No.3. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 2nd DECEMBER, 2009. JUDGMENT (PER: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.) . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith 2 and heard finally. 2) The petitioner, Deputy Chief Executive Officer (GAD) of Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, District Hingoli, was transferred, vide order dated 27.2.2009 to Shindewahi, District Chandrapur. The said transfer was tested before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, M.A.T.) by Original Application No. 279/2009. The said Original Application was dismissed by learned Member of the M.A.T., by Judgment and Order dated 28th July, 2009, by observing that the Government has complied with the provisions of Section 4 sub-section (4) and Section 5 of The Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Maharashtra Transfers Act.) The petitioner has questioned the very order of learned Member of M.A.T. dated 28th July, 2009. 3) The petitioner submits that his son is taking education at Aurangabad and his posting at Hingoli would facilitate him to be in touch with the son, while the distance between Chandrapur and Aurangabad would be quite long. The petitioner had levelled allegations of gratification against the Chief Executive Officer 3 , those are not considered. 4) Learned AGP, while repelling the contention of the petitioner, highlighted as to past conduct of the petitioner, having committed grave illegalities in the matter of appointment and transfer of Zilla Parishad employees. Such matter was referred before the Inquiry Committee and he has violated the provisions of Rule 3 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 and consequently, the Chief Executive Officer has recommended that the applicant should be kept under suspension and necessary disciplinary action be initiated against him under the Service Rules. 5) The factual details indicate that the petitioner was transferred on 6th February, 2009, indeed before commencement of the academic year of his son. That apart, the next incumbent has taken the charge on 6th August, 2009 and this Court has passed orders of maintenance of status quo on 10th August, 2009. 6) Mr. Barlinge, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Departmental Inquiry, referred by the learned AGP, has been concluded in his favour and the petitioner is exonerated from all the charges. The order of 4 M.A.T., according to him, is contrary to provision contained in Section 4 of the Maharashtra Transfers Act. 7) The matter of transfer of an employee is the exclusive domain of the employer to decide as to where and at what point of time, a public servant is to be transferred. It naturally being a province of the employer, the credential of the employee, his activities play a paramount role. The exceptional circumstances, which prevail in the case, constrained the Chief Executive Officer to recommend transfer of the petitioner, within a short duration. It cannot be said that such action is tainted with malafides or disclose any arbitrariness. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the order of learned Member of M.A.T. Even otherwise, the observation of the learned Member of the M.A.T., cannot be said to be contrary to the record and influenced by non- applicant of mind. The observation is well informed with reasons. The conduct of the petitioner will not generate weightage even if he has been exonerated in the Departmental Inquiry as there are different shades and colours to every situation. The request of Mr. Barlinge to at least continue the petitioner till the academic year up to March/April-2010, in the fact situation also, is difficult to accede. The 5 orders passed against the petitioner are purely on administrative grounds and need no interference. We do not see any merit in the petition, it is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. The order of status quo vacated. sd/- sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp5200.09 fldr.25.11.09 Authentic copy (BD VADNERE,PS)