Transfer representations must be decided independently when mala fides are alleged against the issuing officer.

The petitioner, after being promoted and posted to the office of the Regional Director, Health Services, Gwalior, joined there on 4 August 2026.

He suffered from a macular scar in his left eye and severe diabetes and claimed to be undergoing treatment at Gwalior and AIIMS, New Delhi.

Before the impugned transfer, he had submitted a representation seeking exemption from transfer on medical grounds.

By order dated 8 September 2026, he was transferred from Gwalior to the office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital, Morena.

The petitioner alleged that the transfer was mala fide because he was Secretary of the recognised M.P. Union Health Employee Association and had raised objections to irregularities in the gradation list of Assistant Grade-III employees.

He further alleged that Respondent No. 4, Dr. Amit Saxena, had threatened him with registration of an FIR during a telephone call on 23 July 2026.

The State defended the transfer order but did not oppose consideration of the petitioner’s representation.

Whether the petitioner’s representation against the transfer order dated 8 September 2026, including his medical and mala fide allegations, should be considered by a competent authority other than Respondent No. 4.

Whether the operation of the transfer order should remain stayed pending consideration and decision on the petitioner’s representation.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to secure fair and lawful administrative decision-making.

Where the authority who passed an administrative order is himself accused of mala fides, the representation challenging that order should be considered by an independent or different competent authority to avoid apprehension of bias.

The authority considering the representation must provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The Court did not finally adjudicate the validity of the transfer or determine the allegations of mala fides.

The Court noted that the petitioner had joined at Gwalior only recently, had already sought exemption from transfer on serious medical grounds, and had alleged mala fides against Respondent No. 4, who was also the authority responsible for the impugned transfer order.

In these circumstances, the Court considered it inappropriate for Respondent No. 4 to decide the petitioner’s representation.

Rather than finally quashing the transfer order, the Court adopted a limited judicial-review approach: it directed Respondent No. 2 to independently examine the representation, hear both the petitioner and Respondent No. 4, and issue a reasoned decision.

Interim protection was considered necessary to preserve the petitioner’s existing position until that decision was made.

The petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 2 within seven days.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within one month from receipt of the certified order, after hearing both the petitioner and Dr. Amit Saxena.

Until the representation was decided, operation and execution of the transfer order dated 8 September 2026 were stayed, and the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to continue at the Regional Director, Health Services, Gwalior.