“Attempt To Muzzle Employee’s Voice And Have Autocracy”: MAT Sets Aside Transfer Of Professor Who Raised Grievances Against GLC Administration

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has set aside the transfer order of an associate professor of Government Law College, Mumbai terming the transfer “victimisation” and “punitive.”

Member Judge AP Kurhekar observed that professor Ruchita Ratho had raised grievances against the administration and instead of addressing the grievances she was transferred.

“If a Govt servant is transferred because of raising some legitimate grievance, it would certainly attract malice and such transfer would be impermissible,” the authority said.

The professor pointed out that several persons were not attending work on Saturday despite it being a working day. The January 2022 circular regarding 100% faculty was also not being complied. She has also raised grievances of incorrect deduction of income tax of Rs.6,300 from her salary of August 2022 and promotion under CAS (Career Advancement Scheme).

The tribunal added that, “raising of grievance for betterment of administration as well as some personal grievance of deduction of income tax and non-promotion under CAS can hardly be termed the ground to transfer the applicant mid-term.”

Ratho challenged the order dated November 17, 2022, whereby she was transferred from the post of associate professor, Government Law college to Elphinstone Law college, Mumbai by the invocation of section 4 (4) (ii) and 4 (5) of Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.

She had been associated with GLC from 1995 to till date of the transfer order except the period from 2011 to 2015.

Ratho through her lawyer submitted that there was no administrative exigency warranting her mid-term transfer.

The Chief presenting officer for the State submitted that the transfer was essential so that the college administration functioned smoothly. Moreover, the professor was overdue for transfer. The officer also defended the composition of the committee set up to take a decision on her transfer.

“I really fell [fail] to understand how this could be the ground for transfer in law. The grievances raised by the applicant… by no stretch of imagination can be termed disruptive to the administration so as to justify the transfer in such a manner. Instead of addressing grievance, she was transferred which is nothing but victimization and punitive,” the Tribunal said.

The Tribunal noted that there wasn’t a single complaint by students or anybody else about the professor’s teaching, “nor there is any other material to show that her behaviour was causing any kind of hurdle or obstruction to the administration for functioning of the college.”

“This is nothing but [an] attempt to muzzle the voice of employee and to have autocracy,” the tribunal added noting that the professor’s grading was consistently very good from 2015 to 2021. However, the present principal Asmita Vaidya suddenly down-graded her ACR for 2021- 2022 “which also indicate some bias.”

Significantly the bench noted that under section 4(5) of Transfer Act, 2005, there has to be a special case or administrative exigency and after recording reasons in writing only such mid-term transfer is permissible with the approval of Competent Authority. “Only approval of Competent Authority i.e. Hon’ble Chief Minister would not legalize the transfer order,” it said.

Subsequently the MAT allowed the professor’s application and reversed her transfer.

Click Here To Read/Download Order