SRI PUBI LOMBI versus THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 407 · Decided: 13-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 407 : 2024 INSC 200
Sri Pubi Lombi 
v. 
The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2024)
13 March 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Sanjay Karol, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In absence of plea of malafide and no averment regarding violation 
of statutory provision taken by the private respondent before the 
High Court, whether the interference made by the Division Bench 
of the High Court in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge 
was justified merely on the pretext that the proposed modification 
(in transfer order) is arbitrary or without application of mind for the 
sole reason that it was mooted by a MLA.
Headnotes
Service Law – Modified transfer order – Challenge to – The 
Single Judge of the High Court by upholding modified order 
of transfer dated 20.04.2023 observed that transfer made 
on the basis of UO Note dated 28.02.2023 put up by the 
MLA itself cannot be held to vitiate the transfer until there 
is an allegation of any malafide exercise of powers by the 
respondents-authorities in issuing the order – However, the 
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the 
Single Judge – Propriety:
Held: It is settled that the person challenging the transfer ought to 
prove on facts that such transfer is prejudicial to public interest – 
The interference is only justified in a case of malafide or infraction 
of any professed norm or principle – In view of the judicial decisions 
of the Supreme Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings 
regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom 
allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) 
the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee 
who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not 
warranted – In the instant case, in absence of plea of malafide and 
no averment regarding violation of statutory provision taken by the 
private respondent before the High Court, interference as made by 
408
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the Division Bench setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the 
Single Judge is not justified merely on the unsubstantiated pretext 
that the proposed modification is arbitrary or without application 
of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by the MLA – The 
Division Bench has committed an error in setting aside the judgment 
of the Single Judge of the High Court. [Paras 9.2, 10, 14]
Judicial Review – Scope – Transfer orders – Discussed. [Paras 
9.2 - 9.5]
Case Law Cited
Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, [1993] 3 SCR 
427 : (1993) 4 SCC 357; N.K. Singh v. Union of India 
and others, [1994] Suppl. 2 SCR 772 : (1994) 6 SCC 
98; Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, 
[2007] 10 SCR 72 : (2007) 8 SCC 150; State of Punjab 
v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 SC 2486; Ratnagiri 
Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited 
and Ors., [2012] 9 SCR 690 : (2013) 1 SCC 524 – 
relied on.
Union of India and another v.  N.P. Thomas, 1993 Suppl. 
(1) SCC 704 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Transfer order; Modified transfer order; Plea of 
malafide; Violation of statutory provision; Judicial interference; 
Judicial Review; Transfer prejudicial to public interest.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4129 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2023 of the Gauhati High 
Court in WA No. 266 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
B.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv., Kaushik Choudhury, H.K. Das, S.P. Sharma, 
Saksham Garg, Jyotirmoy Chatterjee, Kasif Ahmed, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
Saurabh Mishra, Sr. Adv., Gagan Sanghi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, 
Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
409
Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J. K. Maheshwari J.
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
The judgment dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Division Bench of 
the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 266/2023 reversing the 
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.07.2023 passed in 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 199 (AP) 2023 has been assailed by the 
appellant (respondent No. 5 in Writ Court). The learned Single 
Judge by upholding order of transfer dated 20.04.2023 observed that 
transfer made on the basis of UO Note dated 28.02.2023 put up by 
the Member of the Legislative Assembly, 29-Basar (ST) Assembly 
Constituency (MLA) itself cannot be held to vitiate the transfer until 
there
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.