Rapping Punjab for highhandedness and abuse of administrative powers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State to ensure mid-term transfers are not carried out in violation of its own transfer policy.For the purpose of immediate compliance, the Bench directed the forwarding of its order’s copy forthwith to the State Chief Secretary.“This court comes across a number of petitions being filed on a daily basis, challenging transfer orders, despite the closure of the general transfer exercise on June 30”, Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted in an order with significance beyond the individual transfer dispute.The order came on a petition filed by Agricultural Extension Officer challenging his August 25 transfer from a circle in Gurdaspur district to another in Ludhiana district. The petitioner claimed that the new posting was more than 155 km away and violated the government’s transfer policy dated April 23, 2018, as well as instructions issued on June 15.Taking up the petition, Justice Moudgil asserted: “The present case is a perfect example demonstrating the highhandedness of the State government and constitutes a glaring instance of abuse of administrative powers.”At the onset, the Bench recorded its concern over the continuation of transfers well into September.“Even up to the middle of September, more than two months after the completion of general transfer exercise, the State government continues to issue transfer orders, in an absolute violation of its own transfer policy dated April 23, 2018, issued by the Government of Punjab governing the transfer and posting of government employees,” Justice Moudgil observed.The Bench made it clear that such transfers could not simply be regarded as part of the ordinary transfer exercise. “Transfer made subsequent to the completion of the general transfer exercise would fall into the ambit of ‘mid-term transfer,” Justice Moudgil observed.The Bench also referred to Clause 3 of the 2018 policy. Among other things, it specified the circumstances in which departments could undertake mid-term transfers, including promotion, retirement, restructuring of a department or introduction of new posts, death, resignation, dismissal, long-term leave/deputation or suspension, court orders and mutual transfers.The policy also required the Administrative Secretary to ensure that such transfers were made in “very” less numbers.Referring to the facts of the case in hand, the Court found that the impugned order did not disclose any of these circumstances and appeared to be illegal and was “thereby causing hardship to the petitioner”.Taking a note of the facts and circumstances of the matter, Justice Moudgil stayed the operation of the impugned order during the petition’s pendency. Faced with the situation, the State counsel assured the Court that the department would not carryout further mid-term transfers except in accordance with law.“Though transfer is undoubtedly an incidence of service and the employer is ordinarily entitled to decide the place of posting, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or arbitrarily. A transfer uproots an employee from the place where he or she has been serving and entails corresponding personal and administrative consequences.“Therefore, the power to transfer must be exercised for a genuine administrative purpose, in public interest and in accordance with the applicable rules and transfer policy. The employee should not be compelled to approach the Court merely because the administration has failed to adhere to its own policy,” Justice Moudgil asserted.