STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus ASHOK DESHMUKH & ANR.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 11-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE CF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
ASHOK DESHMUKH & ANR. 
MAY 11, 1988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.) 
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules: Rule 14--Does not apply to 
a case of deputation from one department to another-Mere allegations 
of bias and ma/a fides-Not sufficient to quash administrative orders 
made in exigencies of administration. 
Respondent Ashok Desbmnkh, was a Panchayat and Social Edu-
cation Organiser in the Social Welfare Department, Government of 
• 
Madhya Pradesh, when be was temporarily posted as an officiating 
Block Development Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development 
D Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh on I Ith March, 
1983. His services were returned hack to his parent department on 29th 
June, 1984. 
Aggrieved by the order of repatriation, the respondent filed a snit 
in the Court of Civil Judge, Udaipµra, and obtained a temporary in-
E junction. The temporary injunction having been vacated, be filed a writ 
petition in the High Court. After the writ petition was admitted and 
stay order issued, the respondent withdrew the civil snit. 
Two principal contentions were urged before the High Court 
were; (1) that the order of repatriation was contrary to Rule 14 of the 
F 
M.P. Civil Services Rules, and (2) that the order of repatriation was 
the result of bias and ma/a fide attitude on the part of the Secretary, 
Panchayat and Rural Development Department; 
The High Court held (1) that the order of repatriation had been 
passed in violation of Rule 14 of the Rules, and (2) that although there 
G 
was no material on record to support the allegation of any bias and mala 
fide on the part of the Secretary, the order of repatriation was the result 
of certain 'wrong complaints' made against him. 
The High Court quashed the order of repatriation and directed 
the State Government to retain the respondent as officiating Block 
H Development Officer so long as persons junior to him were retained. 
302 
STATE OF M.P. v. ASHOK DESHMUKH 
303 
Allowing the appeal, it was, 
A 
HELD:(l) Rnle 14 dealt with the question of reversion of a per-
manent Government servant from the officiating higher grade to the 
lower grade, and did not apply to a case of deputation from one depart-
ment to another. The High Court was, therefore, in error in holding 
B 
that the impugned order of repatriation had been passed in violation of 
rule 14 of the Rules. [307D-F] 
(2) The allegations of bias and ma/a fides made against the Sec-
retary have remained unsubstantiated. Unless the Court is sure that the 
impugned order is really based upon allegations of bias and ma/a fides it 
should not proceed to quash administrative orders which are made in 
C 
exigencies of the administration. [310F-G; C-D] 
(3) If mere existence of some allegations against an officer, which 
on enquiry had been found to be untrue, were to be treated as the basis 
for quashing any order of transfer or repatriation made in •espect of 0 
any officer then almost every such order of transfer or repatriation 
would have to be quashed because there would always be some comp-
laint by some party or other against every officer. [3IOC-D] 
( 4) The impugned order of repatriation did not on the face of it 
show that there was any stigma attached to the respondent by reason of E 
the said order. [3IOF] 
(5) On the material placed before it, the Court did not find that 
the order of repatriation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution. [310G] 
C. Thiraviam Pillai v. State of Kera/a, [1976] 2 S.L.R. 395, refer-
red to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2756 
of 1987. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.1986 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in C.M.P. No. 742 of 1985 
S.N. Khare and T.C. Sharma for the Appellants. 
S.K. Gambhir for the Respondents. 
H 
A 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The 1st respondent Ashok Deshmukh 
was appointed as a Panchayat and Social Education Organizer in the 
Social Welfare Department, Go~ernment of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal 
on 16.8.1976. By an order dated 11th March, 1983 he along with 13 
B others was posted on deputation as an officiating Block Development 
Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the 
Government of Madhya Pradesh. The relevant portion of the said 
order, posting the Ist respondent on deputation, read as follows: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"GOV

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.