Published On : Mon, Apr 14th, 2025
By Nagpur Today Nagpur News

HC Quashes CM-Approved Transfer Order, Directs Principal Secretary to Comply with Verdict

Advertisement

Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside a transfer order approved by the Chief Minister, ruling it as unjustified due to lack of valid reasons. The transfer of Virendra Dafe, a Town Planner from the Amravati office to Akola, was ordered by the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department on July 19, 2023.

Dafe had challenged the order before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), which dismissed his appeal on February 2, 2024. Subsequently, he approached the High Court.

Gold Rate
15April 2025
Gold 24 KT 93,500/-
Gold 22 KT 87,000/-
Silver / Kg - 95,800/-
Platinum 44,000 /-
Recommended rate for Nagpur sarafa Making charges minimum 13% and above

During the hearing, Dafe’s counsel argued that the transfer was made arbitrarily within just 1 year and 11 months of his last posting, allegedly based on a recommendation by a local MLA. It was further pointed out that such transfers, without justification, violate the directions issued by a Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 8987/2018 (Balasaheb Vitthalrao Tidke vs. State of Maharashtra & Others), which emphasized the need for written reasons, especially under Section 4(4)(ii) of the 2005 Act.

The petitioner also highlighted that there was already a vacant post at the Amravati office, which was later assigned to another individual, Tushar Nand. Therefore, the transfer of Dafe was unnecessary and appeared to be driven by malafide intentions.

After detailed arguments from both sides, the High Court not only quashed the MAT order dated February 2, 2024, but also invalidated the original transfer order issued by the Urban Development Department. The court remarked that no reasons were cited for the transfer, which is mandatory under the law, especially when special powers are exercised.

The High Court has now directed the Principal Secretary to act in accordance with the court’s decision.

Advertisement
Advertisement