State Of Punjab And Others v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

Joginder Singh Dhatt, employed as Superintendent Grade-II with the Government of Punjab, was transferred from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur by an order dated 4 November 1992. He challenged this transfer before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, contending that:

It constituted a “mid-term” transfer, occurring less than two years before his scheduled superannuation on 30 June 1994, allegedly contrary to government instructions.

The transfer was therefore improper and should be set aside.

The State of Punjab responded that the transfer was routine and additionally justified on administrative grounds because the respondent had been charge-sheeted; relocating him would prevent interference with the pending inquiry. The High Court nonetheless allowed the writ petition and quashed the transfer order. The State appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which granted special leave to appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent (Employee)

The transfer was a “mid-term” relocation within two years of retirement and therefore violated the State Government’s own instructions.

On that basis, the order was liable to be set aside.

Appellant (State of Punjab)

The transfer was made in the ordinary course of administrative functioning.

Because the respondent was charge-sheeted, moving him would ensure he could not interfere with the inquiry; the decision was therefore reasonable and necessary.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court reiterated its consistent view that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with transfer orders of public servants. The Court emphasized:

The decision regarding when and where to post a public employee falls squarely within the employer’s discretion.

Judicial intervention is warranted only when a transfer order is shown to be mala fide or patently illegal, circumstances not demonstrated here.

The High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, absent any evident injustice, was an overreach.

Finding no illegality or injustice in the transfer, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the order.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed; High Court judgment set aside; respondent’s transfer from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur upheld.

Immediate Effect: The respondent remains transferred to Sangrur, and the High Court’s contrary order is vacated. Broader Implications: The decision reinforces the principle that courts should exercise great restraint in interfering with routine administrative transfers of public servants, reaffirming employers’ prerogative unless palpable illegality or mala fides are shown.

State Of Punjab And Others v. Joginder Singh Dhatt

JUDGMENT

1. Special leave granted.

2. Joginder Singh Dhatt, the respondent, is working as Superintendent Grade-II in the service of the Punjab Government. He was transferred from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur purely on administrative grounds. He challenged the order of transfer by way of a writ petition before the High Court on the ground that it was a mid-term transfer and apart from that he was due to superannuate on June 30, 1994 and as such under Government instructions he should not have been transferred. The State of Punjab pleaded before the High Court that the transfer was in the ordinary course. It was further stated that Joginder Singh Dhatt was charge-sheeted and to ensure that he did not interfere with the inquiry proceedings he was transferred to Sangrur. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the transfer order on the following reasoning:

Despite all this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner insisted that this Court may cancel the impugned transfer order as the same is contrary to the instructions and a midterm transfer within two years of the superannuation, regardless of the consequences by any action which the State Govt. may take in the matter during the pendency of the inquiry.

Under the circumstances, we allow this petition and quash the impugned order of transfer dated 4th Nov., 1992 (Annexure P-2) as the same is contrary to the instructions of the State Govt. as also in view of the fact that the petitioner is attaining the age of superannuation on 30th June, 1994, and his transfer in the month of Nov., 1992 is a midterm transfer. There shall be no order as to costs.

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter where, on the face of it, no injustice was caused.

4. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dated December 15, 1992 and uphold the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. No costs.

Civil Appeal No. 3340 Of 1993

State Of Punjab And Others v. Joginder Singh Dhatt

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent (Employee)

Appellant (State of Punjab)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of Punjab And Others v. Joginder Singh Dhatt

Comments