In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment regarding the judicial scrutiny of transfer orders concerning state employees. The Court declared that courts should refrain from interfering with transfer orders of state employees unless there’s evidence of malice or violation of laws.
The case revolved around the transfer of two state employees. Initially, the state government issued transfer orders, but modifications were made at the behest of a local MLA, purportedly in the public interest. One employee challenged this modification, alleging malafide intent.
Initially, the single judge of the High Court upheld the transfer, emphasising the absence of malice. However, the Division Bench later overturned this decision, alleging arbitrariness.
Upon review, the Supreme Court reinstated the Single Judge’s ruling, emphasising that the MLA’s involvement didn’t automatically taint the transfer order. The court stressed that unless there’s clear malice or a breach of laws, judicial interference isn’t warranted.
Additionally, it highlighted the necessity of involving accused parties when allegations of malice are made.
Moreover, it clarified that Article 226 does not permit judicial review of transfer orders in the absence of malafide, statutory breaches, or detriment to the transferred employee. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that judicial review of transfer orders should be limited, especially when no malice or statutory violations are evident.
Consequently, the appellant’s appeal was granted, and the Single Judge’s decision was reinstated.
