MP High Court Quashes Punitive Attachment Of Government Employee, Says Transfer Cannot Be A Punishment

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an attachment order issued against a government employee, reiterating that attachment or transfer cannot be used as a tool of punishment and must strictly comply with the State's transfer policy.

Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by Ashok Singh, who had challenged an order dated May 8, 2026, attaching him to Janpad Panchayat, Porsa in Morena district. The Court found that the attachment order was prima facie contrary to the General Administration Department (GAD) Circular dated May 4, 2024, as well as the State's transfer policy, both of which prohibit attachments.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Pratip Visoriya argued that the impugned order violated the GAD circulars issued by the State Government on multiple occasions, which clearly state that attachment of employees is impermissible. He further contended that the order itself disclosed that the attachment had been imposed as a punishment, even though attachment or transfer cannot legally be resorted to as a disciplinary measure.

The State opposed the petition through Government Advocate G.K. Agarwal and defended the order.

After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Court observed that the attachment order could not be sustained in law. It noted that the State's transfer policy specifically bars attachments and that the respondents had attempted to justify the impugned action as a punitive measure.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India (2009) 2 SCC 592, the High Court underscored that while transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and an administrative function, it cannot be used as a substitute for disciplinary proceedings.

Quoting from the Supreme Court judgment, the Court noted: "It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal."

The Court further held that the law is well settled on the issue. "The transfer and attachment of Government employee/officer cannot be made by way of punishment," the Court observed.

Justice Bahrawat also referred to Clause 52 of the transfer policy, which specifically prohibits all forms of attachment. The Court examined the circumstances leading to the order and noted that although a complaint had been made against the petitioner and a preliminary inquiry had been conducted, the inquiry report did not indicate that the allegations against him had been proved.

In these circumstances, the Court observed that an employee cannot be subjected to adverse administrative action merely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. "Therefore, an employee/officer cannot be victimised by way of attachment or transfer," the Court said.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the State is not powerless in cases where misconduct is suspected. It observed that if the Government considers it necessary to transfer an employee on genuine administrative grounds, it remains free to do so in accordance with the transfer policy. Similarly, disciplinary proceedings may be initiated where warranted under law.

Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the attachment order dated May 8, 2026, and directed the authorities to permit the petitioner to continue discharging his duties at his existing place of posting.

The Court, however, granted liberty to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law if they deem it appropriate.

Case Title: Ashok Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: May 22, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat