The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that administrative transfers cannot be weaponized against employees nearing retirement, especially when coupled with medical vulnerability and absence of sanctioned posts. The judgment underscores the limits of executive discretion in service matters and reinforces the doctrine of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shri Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava, a Professor of Chemical Engineering, was transferred from Engineering College, Ujjain to Engineering College, Rewa by an order dated 23.11.2025. The transfer was challenged on grounds of malafide intent, violation of service rules, and disregard for his medical condition and proximity to superannuation.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in 1988 through MPPSC.
- Promoted to Reader in 1993 and to Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme by order dated 31.10.2002.
- Appointed as Incharge Principal of Ujjain Engineering College on 06.10.2021.
- Charge of Incharge Principal was abruptly removed by order dated 20.12.2024.
- The petitioner challenged the removal, and the Division Bench of the High Court restored his position on 02.04.2025.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the private respondent’s Special Leave Petition on 30.10.2025, confirming the restoration.
- During the pendency of the SLP, the petitioner was transferred to Nogaon (Tikamgarh) on 03.06.2025; this order was quashed by the High Court on 03.07.2025.
- A charge sheet alleging financial irregularities in outsourcing payments was issued on 21.11.2025.
- The impugned transfer order to Rewa was issued on 23.11.2025 - a Sunday - just 23 days after the charge sheet and 13 days after the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP.
- The petitioner is due to superannuate in August 2026, leaving approximately nine months of service.
- The petitioner suffers from a severe kidney condition requiring dialysis two to three times per week.
- No sanctioned post of Professor (Chemical Engineering) exists at Engineering College, Rewa.
- The petitioner is guiding eight Ph.D. students, whose research would be disrupted by relocation.
- The petitioner is a State cadre employee on deputation to an autonomous institution.
Procedural History
- 20.12.2024: Removal from Incharge Principal charge at Ujjain.
- 02.04.2025: Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court restores petitioner’s position.
- 03.06.2025: Transfer order issued to Nogaon (Tikamgarh).
- 03.07.2025: High Court quashes transfer to Nogaon.
- 30.10.2025: Supreme Court dismisses SLP filed by private respondent, upholding restoration.
- 21.11.2025: Charge sheet issued alleging financial irregularities.
- 23.11.2025: Impugned transfer order issued to Rewa.
- 25.11.2025: Writ Petition No. 46684/2025 filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- 05.05.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the transfer order dated 23.11.2025, restoration of his position as Incharge Principal at Ujjain, continuation of all consequential benefits, and directions to ensure fair conduct of the pending departmental enquiry.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative transfer issued to an employee nearing retirement, with no sanctioned post at the destination, and amid a sequence of retaliatory actions following successful litigation, constitutes malafide exercise of power in violation of Article 14 and service jurisprudence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the transfer violated the State’s own transfer policy which prohibits transfers within one year of superannuation. The absence of a sanctioned post of Professor (Chemical Engineering) at Rewa rendered the transfer illegal under service norms. The timing - immediately after the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP and on a Sunday - indicated malafide intent to harass. The petitioner’s medical condition made relocation impossible, and the disruption to his Ph.D. students’ research was substantial. The transfer to an autonomous institution without consent was also legally impermissible.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the transfer was made in administrative exigency due to a pending departmental enquiry involving financial irregularities. It was argued that the petitioner could teach general engineering subjects even without a subject-specific post. Medical facilities were available in Rewa, and the claim regarding Ph.D. students was factually incorrect. The petitioner had previously served on deputation without a Chemical Engineering post, thus estopped from raising the issue now. Pension processing was routine and unaffected by location.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that transfers are not immune from judicial scrutiny when they are shown to be arbitrary, malafide, or in violation of statutory rules. The absence of a sanctioned post for the petitioner’s substantive position at the destination was a fatal flaw. The Court observed:
"Transferring an employee to a place where his substantive post is not sanctioned is irregular and contrary to the established norms of service jurisprudence."
The Court meticulously traced the sequence of events: removal from Principal charge, quashed transfer to Nogaon, Supreme Court’s final affirmation of his position, issuance of a charge sheet, and then an immediate transfer on a non-working day. This pattern, the Court held, was not coincidental but indicative of a predetermined design to displace the petitioner.
The Court rejected the State’s claim of administrative necessity, noting that departmental enquiries can proceed without relocating the accused, especially when the accused is within the same state and the enquiry is being conducted at the original posting. The Court also dismissed the argument regarding medical facilities in Rewa, stating:
"Subjecting an employee to a displacement of 900 kilometers at the fag end of his career, while dependent on thrice-weekly dialysis, is highly unreasonable and arbitrary."
The Court further held that the petitioner’s prior deputation to MIT, Ujjain, without a Chemical Engineering post, did not constitute estoppel, as the circumstances were materially different and no precedent of permanent transfer was involved.
The Verdict
The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 23.11.2025 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to continue his services at Ujjain Engineering College with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to supply all documents and witness lists related to the pending departmental enquiry to the petitioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The departmental enquiry must be concluded before the petitioner’s superannuation in August 2026. No order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Transfer Within One Year of Retirement Is Presumptively Invalid
- Practitioners may now invoke the one-year rule as a strong presumption against transfer near retirement, shifting the burden to the State to justify exceptional circumstances.
- Any transfer within 12 months of superannuation must be supported by compelling, documented administrative exigency - not mere convenience or punitive intent.
Absence of Sanctioned Post Renders Transfer Illegal
- Transfers to posts not sanctioned for the employee’s substantive grade are void ab initio, regardless of whether the employee can perform other duties.
- Departments must maintain and produce sanctioned post registers to validate transfer orders.
Malafide Is Proven by Chronology, Not Just Motive
- A rapid sequence of adverse actions - removal, litigation, charge sheet, transfer - creates a prima facie case of malafide.
- Timing, especially transfers issued on weekends or holidays, may be treated as evidence of intent to circumvent procedural safeguards.
Medical Condition as a Compelling Factor in Service Decisions
- Chronic medical conditions requiring regular treatment (e.g., dialysis, chemotherapy) must be formally documented and considered in transfer decisions.
- Courts will not defer to administrative claims of "adequate facilities" if relocation imposes disproportionate hardship.
Departmental Enquiries Must Comply with Natural Justice
- Even when transfer is upheld, the State must ensure full disclosure of charges, documents, and witness lists to the accused.
- Enquiries must be concluded before retirement to avoid denial of opportunity to defend.
