A bench comprising vice-chairman R B Budhiraja observed that there was no “urgency” or “sensitivity” involved as contended by the Chief Presenting Officer (CPO) of the state government.

Andhalkar, who has been in service since 1985, was attached to a police station in Pune Rural.

On August 2, 2007 the Superintendent of Police, Pune (Rural), by an order, transferred Andhalkar as coordinating officer of Loni Kalbhor police station there. Twelve days later, the SP once again, through an order, attached the applicant to the Control Room on administrative grounds.

Andhalkar then filed an application for relief before the MAT.

However, the SP and DGP P S Pasricha again ordered the transfer of Andhalkar to Solapur city on October 15 and relieved him the same day.

Advocate A V Bandiwadekar, appearing for the applicant, argued that “there is no provision for attachment in the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 or the Bombay Police Act where the normal tenure in a post shall be three years”.

The CPO countered this argument stating that “attachment is not covered by the Act since it is a temporary order issued because of urgent grounds”.

The tribunal, however, observed that as for the first order nothing has been brought before the bench to establish what was the urgency and why the applicant’s assistance was required for investigation.

Regarding the second transfer to the Control Room, the bench observed that there was no indication why the applicant was withdrawn from the first investigation and what work he was supposed to do in the Control Room which could not be carried out in his absence.

The tribunal also held that nothing was brought before the tribunal to justify the third order by DGP.

The tribunal held that the state has not been able to adduce any evidence to show urgency or rationale, the applicant has produced enough evidence to indicate that there was political pressure for the transfers.

The DGP, in his affidavit, has stated that Andhalkar had requested for transfer to Solapur.

The tribunal also noted that the demand not to continue the applicant in Pune was based on the sensitivity of the matter with regard to a complaint received from the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

Andhalkar, however, convinced the tribunal that the enquiries conducted by the SP and Special IG did not substantiate the complaints.

Observing that there was no sensitivity involved, the tribunal finally held that “prima facie there was no substance in the complaints and only under political pressure the orders were issued”.