1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8545 OF 2009 Krushna s/o Laxman Valvi ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the petitioner;' Mr S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3; Mr A.G. Magare, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 5th April, 2010 PER COURT : The petitioner, an Officer who had been working as the Chief Officer of Taloda Municipal Council, challenges the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 4.12.2009, in Original Application No.718 of 2009, dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has highlighted his grievance that despite being a diligent and an honest Officer, the petitioner has been repeatedly transferred from one posting to the other. The last of such transfer was the subject-matter of challenge in the Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had called for the original record and had perused it and thereafter has recorded a finding that there has been compliance of 2 the provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. The Tribunal also found that the record contained a complaint addressed by the Member of Legislative Assembly of Taloda against the present petitioner. Ultimately the Tribunal came to the conclusion that on account of the complaint the petitioner was transferred and in the light of the complaint the transfer of the petitioner was on administrative grounds. 3. Mr V.D. Gunale, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the complaint and the transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the mandatory provisions contained in the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. At the outset we wish to make it clear that the petitioner was not entitled to a copy of the complaint nor was he entitled to be heard. No disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner and consequently the petitioner was not entitled to the copy of the complaint or was not entitled to be heard before the transfer order came to be passed. The transfer order has been passed on the basis of the complaint and obviously on account of administrative reasons, as retaining the said Officer at the concerned place of posting would not be conducive to smooth administration. 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties we have perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal and upon such perusal we do not find any grounds for entertaining this petition and taking a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.5652 of 2009, Shriprakash Maruti Waghmare vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors, dated 3 16.10.2009. According to us, the facts in the said judgment being different from the facts of the present case, the ratio laid down therein is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In that light of the matter, the petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P. V. HARDAS, J.) amj/wp8545.09