Doctor transferred despite appointment being non-transferrable! HC slams DME for violating service terms, slaps compensation
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently asked the Director of Medical Education (DME) to pay Rs 25,000 as cost while considering a plea by a doctor who was transferred for a second time in violation of the terms of her service.
Quashing the transfer order, the HC bench comprising Justice Vishal Mishra clarified the amount of cost has to be paid by the Director of Medical Education out of his pocket.
"Therefore, while quashing the impugned transfer order, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the respondents, to be personally borne by the respondent No.3-Director, Medical Education, and to be paid to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of this order. The compliance to the aforesaid be reported to this Court. The aforesaid conduct of the respondent No.3 be reported in his service records," it observed.
The petitioner was appointed as a Demonstrator in Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College (Autonomous), Jabalpur on 25.03.2017. Later, she was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor on 02.05.2018 and to the post of Designate Associate Professor on 03.11.2022.
Despite the appointment of the petitioner being non-transferable, she was transferred to Government Medical College, Seoni by an order dated 22.07.2024. Challenging the order, the doctor approached the HC bench.
It was pointed out that Clause 12 of the appointment order clearly stipulated that the services of the petitioner were non-transferable. Earlier, the petitioner was transferred and filed a plea before the Court and thereafter through an order dated 22.02.2023, the interim relief was granted to the petitioner doctor to the effect that she was permitted to perform her duties at the present place of posting i.e. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur till the next date of hearing.
Thereafter, through the final order dated 14.03.2023, the doctor's plea was allowed in the light of the order passed in the case of Dr. Yogesh Rathore vs State of Madhya Pradesh.
Further, the petitioner referred to the fact that in identical circumstances, the case of other employee i.e. Dr. Shailesh Kumar who had also preferred a plea was disposed of by an order dated 23.02.2023 and the transfer order was also quashed.
Therefore, it was argued despite being aware of the fact that the petitioner's services were non-transferable, again the authorities passed the order transferring the petitioner to GMC Seoni which was not permissible.
When the matter was taken up in the second round, the State Counsel was directed to seek instructions to the effect that despite a specific observation made by the Court in the earlier round of litigation, and the similar transfer order of the petitioner being quashed holding that there was a condition in the appointment order that her services were non-transferable, under what circumstances, the order dated 22.07.2024 was passed.
Consequently, the State Counsel after seeking instructions from the department telephonically, submitted that a mistake was committed and transfer orders were passed.
Taking note of this, the HC bench observed,
"Once the respondents accept the mistake in passing the order dated 22.07.2024 coupled with the fact that there is no subsequent order passed by them cancelling the said order, it appears that there is no initiative taken by the respondents to cancel the order dated 22.07.2024. The petitioner is compelled to approach this Court again challenging her transfer order, although it is temporary in nature but the fact remains that Clause 12 of the appointment order is clear and cogent that her services are non-transferable. Furthermore, the similar issue was considered by this Court on the earlier occasion and the transfer order of the petitioner and others were quashed considering Clause 12 of the appointment order. Hence, the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed."
The High Court also criticised the DME for issuing the transfer order despite the fact that the petitioner's services were non-transferable and the earlier transfer order was quashed.
Holding that DME has not only disobeyed the HC order in the earlier round of litigation but also shown disrespect to the orders passed by the Court, the Court ordered,
"The respondent No.3 despite the fact that the services of the petitioner are non-transferable and knowing well that earlier transfer order was quashed considering Clause 12 of the appointment order, the impugned order has been passed transferring the petitioner to Government Medical College, Seoni. Under these circumstances, the respondent No.3 has not only disobeyed the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation but also has shown disrespect to the orders passed by this Court. The respondent No.3 was well aware of the reason for quashment of the earlier transfer order but despite the same, the impugned order has been passed. Now the respondent No.3 has submitted that the said order has been passed under a mistake. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be appropriately compensated for the same. Therefore, while quashing the impugned transfer order, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the respondents, to be personally borne by the respondent No.3-Director, Medical Education, and to be paid to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of this order. The compliance to the aforesaid be reported to this Court. The aforesaid conduct of the respondent No.3 be reported in his service records."
To read the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/mp-hc-order-246980.pdf
