MP High Court Sets Aside Attachment Order Against Panchayat Employee, Says Service Transfers Must Be Administrative, Not Punitive

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that attachment and transfer of government employees cannot be used as punitive measures and must conform to the State’s transfer policy. The Court quashed an order attaching a government employee to a Janpad Panchayat, holding that such action was contrary to both government policy and established legal principles governing public service.

The case was filed by Ashok Singh, who challenged an order dated May 8, 2026, by which he was attached to Janpad Panchayat, Porsa, in Morena district. He argued that the order violated the General Administration Department (GAD) Circular dated May 4, 2024, as well as the State’s transfer policy, both of which prohibit attachments. He further contended that the order itself indicated that the attachment was imposed as a form of punishment, which is impermissible under service law.

Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat examined the relevant policies and observed that Clause 52 of the transfer policy expressly prohibits all forms of attachment. The Court also noted that the State authorities appeared to justify the attachment on the basis of allegations made against the petitioner. However, a preliminary inquiry conducted into those allegations had not found them to be proved.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India (2009), the Court emphasized that while transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and may be ordered for administrative reasons, it cannot be used as a substitute for disciplinary proceedings. A transfer or attachment imposed in lieu of punishment is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

The Court observed that government employees cannot be victimised through attachment or transfer merely because complaints have been made against them. If misconduct is suspected, the proper course is to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. Likewise, genuine administrative transfers may be carried out under the applicable transfer policy.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the attachment order and directed the authorities to allow the petitioner to continue at his existing place of posting. At the same time, it clarified that the State remains free to initiate disciplinary action against him if justified under law.