1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2458/2008. Bapu Maisha Atram and another. ..vs.. Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, thr. Chief Executive Officer, Gadchiroli. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: D.D.SINHA and C.L.PANGARKAR,JJ. DATE : 20th June, 2008. Heard Mr.A.A.Naik, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Rishikesh Deshpande, Advocate for the respondents. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 30/5/2008 whereby the petitioners are transferred from Panchayat Samiti Aheri to Panchayat Samiti Dhanora and petitioner no.2 from Panchayat Samiti Aheri to Panchayat Samiti Korchi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the order of transfer it is mentioned that the transfer is based on some complaints made against the said petitioners, however, the petitioners were not given any 2 opportunity of hearing nor given memo in this regard and therefore, same being violative of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained in law. It is no doubt true that there is a mention in the transfer order that the transfers are based on the complaints, however, the tenor of the order will demonstrate that the transfers are effected mainly on the ground of administrative exigency. So far as aspect of complaints is concerned, it is no doubt true that if there are major complaints against the employee, unless such employee is made aware of such complaints and is given opportunity of hearing, it will not be proper on the part of the department to transfer the said employee. Consequently, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. chute 3