- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, an Excise Inspector (Flying Squad) in Maharashtra, conducted a raid on 28-12-1994 against a toddy contractor and took samples that were later confirmed to be adulterated with the poisonous substance chloral hydrate. After obtaining permission on 25-8-1995, the appellant sought prosecution of the licensee and cancellation of the liquor licence, which was ultimately cancelled on 24-9-1996.
In quick succession, the contractor and industry representatives lodged complaints against the appellant (30-8-1995 and 7-10-1995). Acting on these complaints, the State initiated proceedings on 18-11-1995 that culminated in the appellant’s transfer order. Despite a contemporaneous performance review dated 7-7-1995 praising the appellant for exceeding revenue-collection targets, the transfer was upheld by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, on 6-12-1996 in OA No. 925 of 1995.
The appellant obtained special-leave and brought the present appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the transfer.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the transfer order issued against the appellant was a bona fide exercise of administrative power made in the public interest or a mala fide, arbitrary action taken to victimise an honest officer.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the official record underlying the transfer decision and found:
- The appellant’s raid exposed adulteration that endangered public health, and he followed statutory procedure to prosecute and cancel the licence.
- Immediately after these lawful actions, the affected contractor and industry representatives lodged complaints that were forwarded by a district minister to the State Excise Minister, triggering departmental action against the appellant.
- The Deputy Commissioner of Excise had formally commended the appellant on 7-7-1995 for surpassing revenue quotas, describing his work as “excellent.” This unimpeached appraisal contradicted any allegation of poor performance.
- Given the timing of the complaints and the appellant’s proven record, the Court concluded that the transfer served the interests of the complainants rather than the public, characterising it as “mala fide and arbitrary.”
- The Court condemned the practice of demoralising honest officers who take action against black-marketing and liquor contraband, labelling the present case “one of the eloquent cases” of such victimisation.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed, and the transfer order of the appellant is quashed. The Court directed that its decision be communicated to the Chief Secretary, who must take appropriate action against those responsible and report back to the Registry.
Implications: The decision immediately reinstates the appellant and mandates accountability for officials who engineered the mala fide transfer. While the opinion does not articulate broader doctrinal developments, it signals the Supreme Court’s intolerance of retaliatory transfers against upright public servants.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. It is most unfortunate that the Government demoralises the officers who discharge their duties honestly and diligently and brings to book the persons indulging in black marketing and contrabanding liquor. This is one of the eloquent cases where such a sorry state of affairs has come to light.
4. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, made on 6-12-1996 in OA No. 925 of 1995 upholding the order of transfer of the appellant. We directed the learned counsel appearing for the State to produce the record and the material which is made the basis for transfer of the appellant. The sequence to be mentioned hereunder stands testimony to the facts. The transfer is nothing but mala fide and arbitrary action at the behest of the persons interested to target the honest officers who efficiently discharge their duties.
5. On 28-12-1994, the appellant conducted a raid on Mr Rathod at Dharayan Tal, Erandol Amalner Tal, Amalner. Sample was taken from the toddy for analysis on the even date; consequently, offences were registered on 29-12-1994, on the basis of the Analysis Report received on 25-8-1995. It revealed that that toddy was adulterated. Therein, it was clearly stated that it contained chloral hydrate, a very harmful and poisonous substance which could endanger the lives of the consumers. The appellant asked for permission of the competent authorities to prosecute the licensee and also for cancellation of the licence. By his proceedings of even date, i.e, 25-8-1995, permission was granted. As a counter-blast to sincere and legal action taken by the appellant against Mr Narayana Goud, the toddy contractor, the latter lodged his complaint against the appellant on 30-8-1995 and the Minister for District (designated as Guaradia Minister) repeated the complaint to the Minister for State Excise on the basis of the contractor's complaint on 28-9-1995. This is the lynching point where the officer was alleged to be wanting in duty. It would be obvious that based upon this complaint given by the Guaradia Minister to the Minister for State Excise, triggered another complaint by one Shewala, President of the Country Liquor Association on 7-10-1995. Pursuant to the permission for cancellation of the licence, the licence came to be cancelled on 24-9-1996. On the basis of these complaints, the action appears to have been initiated as per the proceedings dated 18-11-1995. Action was taken against the appellant and ultimately he came to be transferred. It is seen that the officer supposed to review the performance of the duties of the officers on 7-7-1995, i.e, Deputy Commissioner, Excise had reviewed and stated that from 25-3-1995 to 25-5-1995 he collected articles worth Rs 34,996.00, Rs 1,91,853.00 and Rs 1,80,143.00 in three months. In his commendation he has stated that “after considering the abovesaid particulars, except Mr A.D Dhande, Inspector Flying Squad, Jalgaon” not a single officer had fulfilled the required quota. “Please congratulate Mr Dhande on my behalf for his excellent work and for having fulfilled his target.” It was signed by S.A Patil, Deputy Commissioner, Excise.
6. In view of the unimpeachable and eloquent testimony of the performance of the duties, it will be obvious that the transfer is not in public interest but is a case of victimisation of an honest officer at the behest of the aggrieved complainants carrying on the business in liquor and toddy. Under these circumstances, as stated earlier, the transfer of the appellant is nothing but mala fide exercise of the power to demoralise honest officers who would efficiently discharge the duties of public office.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The transfer order of the appellant stands quashed. Order may be communicated to the Chief Secretary to take appropriate action against the persons responsible for it and the action taken may be informed to this Registry.
Alert