Baseless Allegations Of Communal Bias By Govt Employee To Stall Transfer Would Lead To Serious Breach In Executing Administrative Orders: MP HC

A single judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “This court is also of the considered opinion that if such unsubstantiated allegations are allowed to be entertained on their face value, it would lead to serious breach in execution of administrative orders, and if accepted, tomorrow any Senior Officer of a Muslim community passing an order of transfer of his sub-ordinates, who belong to non-muslim community, may also be susceptible to such criticism of communal bias, leading to a total failure of State machinery and resultant disorder. Thus, such practice has to be discouraged at the threshold only.”

As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner, Incharge Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Ratlam was aggrieved by the order of his transfer from Ratlam to Chhindwara on the post of In-charge Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology. Thus, he filed the petition on the ground of mala fide on the part of the respondents contending that his transfer was politically motivated, and only because he belongs to Muslim community, he has been transferred at the instance of the local leader of the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP).

The petitioner contended that the State has discriminated on the ground of religion by transferring him from Ratlam to some other districts which is in violation of his rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

On the contrary, the counsel for the State submitted that the petition has been filed with mala fide intention of taking undue benefit of the petitioner's religion, and communal colour is being given to a normal order of transfer. It is further submitted that merely if four persons of one community from one place have been transferred, it cannot be deemed to be a transfer with mala fide intention.

After hearing the parties, the Court noted that although the petitioner made serious allegations of communal bias in transferring him and the other persons from Ratlam, but no other persons mentioned in the petition, have joined him in his cause.

The Court further noted that the petitioner has not been transferred to any other place since last around 9 to 10 years, despite there being a provision under Clause 16 and 17 of the Transfer Policy that a government employee may be transferred from one place to another on completion of three years. “Thus, when the petitioner has remained in Ratlam since last more than 9 years, and after staying in Ratlam for three years, has been successfully able to avoid his transfer in the last 6 to 7 years, it is difficult to accept his contention that he is being transferred with mala fide intention and in violation of the transfer policy.”, the Court said.

The petitioner contended that he and other persons have been transferred at the instance of the leader(s) of the BJP. However, on a close scrutiny, the Court found that the nature of this document, who issued the same, is not mentioned, and how it came in the possession of the petitioner was also not mentioned.

The Court also took note of the fact that not only the petitioner but also three other persons, including a woman, who are non-Muslims, have also been transferred to different places.

In view of the above, the Court observed, “…this Court finds that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any such mala fide intentions on the part of the respondents, and on the contrary his continuation at Ratlam since last more than 9 to 10 years, and his unwillingness to move out of the said place by any means, even by alleging communal bias, only demonstrates his desperate attempt to stall his transfer, which is highly deprecated.”

The Court also said that during the tenure of same government, the petitioner was given the additional charge of Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, Indore by the Controller of Legal Metrology, and thus, it cannot be said that there was any malice on the part of the respondents in transferring him.

Case Title: Naseem Uddin Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P) And Others, Writ Petition No. 11441 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order