http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI ARVIND DATTATRAYA DHANDE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D. P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      It is  most unfortunate that the Government demoralises the  Officers   who  discharge   the  duties   honestly  and diligently and brings to book the persons indulging in black marketing and  contrabanding the  liquor. This is one of the eloquent case  where such  a sorry state of affairs has come to light.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Maharashtra  Administrative Tribunal,  Aurangabad Bench, made on  December 6,  1996 in O.A. No. 925 of 1995 upholding the order  of transfer  of the  appellant. We  directed  the learned counsel  appearing for  the  State  to  produce  the record and the material which is made the basis for transfer of the  appellant. The  sequence to  be mentioned  hereunder stands testimony  to the  facts. The transfer is nothing but mala fide  and arbitrary action at the behest of the persons interested to  target the  honest officers  who  efficiently discharge the duties.      On December 28, 1994, the appellant conducted a raid on Mr. Rathod  at Dharayan  Tal. Erandol  Amalner Tal. Amalner. Sample was  taken from  the Toddy  for analysis  on the even date; consequently, offences were registered on December 29, 1994, on the basis of the Analyses Report received on August 25, 1995.  It revealed  that today was adulterated. Therein, it was  clearly stated  that it contained Chloral Hydrate, a very harmful  and poisonous  substance which  could endanger the  lives   of  the  consumers.  The  appellant  asked  for permission of  the competent  authorities to  prosecute  the licensee and  also for  cancellation of  the licence. By his proceeding of  even dates  i.e., August 25, 1995, permission was granted.  As a counter-blast to sincere and legal action taken by  the appellant against Mr. Narayana Goud, the toddy contractor, the  latter lodged  his  complaint  against  the appellant on  August 30,  1995 and the Minister for District (designated as  Guaradia Minister) repeated the complaint to the  Minister   for  State.  Excise  on  the  basis  of  the contractor’s  complaint  on  September  28,  1995.  This  is lynching point  where the  officer was alleged to be wanting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

in duty.  It would  be obvious  that  the  based  upon  this complaint given by the Guarrdia Minister to the Minister for State Excise,  triggered another  complaint by  one Shewala, President of  the Country  Liquor Association  on October 7, 1995. Pursuant  to the  permission for  cancellation of  the licence, licence came to be cancelled on September 24, 1996. On the basis of these complaints, the action appears to have been initiated  as per  the proceedings  dated November  18, 1995. Action  was taken against the appellant and ultimately he came  to be  transferred. It  is seen  that  the  officer supposed to  review the  performance of  the duties  of  the officers on  July 7, 1995, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Excise had reviewed  and stated  that from March 25 to May 25, 1995 he collected articles Rs. 34,996.00, Rs. 1,91,853.00 and Rs. 1,80,143.00 in  three months.  In his  commendation  he  has stated that  "after considering  the above said particulars, except Mr. A.D. Dhande Inspector Flying Squad Jalgaon" not a single officer  has fulfilled  the required  quota." "Please congratulate Mr.  Dhande on my behalf for his excellent work and for  he has fulfilled his target." It was signed by S.A. Patil, Deputy Commissioner, Excise.      In view  of the unimpeachable and eloquent testimony of the performance  of the  duties, it will be obvious that the transfer is  not  in  public  interest  but  is  a  case  of victimisation of  a honest  officer at  the  behest  of  the aggrieved complainants  carrying on  the business  in liquor and toddy.  Under these circumstance, as stated earlier, the transfer of  the appellant is nothing but mala fide exercise of  the  power  to  demoralise  honest  officers  who  would efficiently discharge the duties of a public office.      The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. the transfer order of the  appellant stands  quashed. Order may be communicated to the  Chief Secretary  to take  appropriate action against the person  responsible for  it and  the action taken may be informed to this Registry.