JUDGMENT
Pratibha Upasani, J.
1. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri E.P. Sawant, learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and Shri Ghute Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. The petitioner is working as Sectional Engineer in Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. As per the order dated 19-6-2001 he was transferred from Sub-Division Osmanabad to Panchayat Samiti, Paranda. He then made a representation dated 22-06-2001 to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad and Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. Thereafter on 29-06-2001, he addressed a letter to the Chief Minister. Government of Maharashtra, seeking intervention of the Chief Minister in the matter of his transfer from Osmanabad to Paranda. On 09-08-2001, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Osmanabad, informing that the transfer order of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Government and accordingly the Chief Executive Officer should also cancel the said transfer order. As the Chief Executive Officer has not acted as per these directions issued by the Deputy Secretary, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. In this respect, we would like to refer to Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Conduct) Rules, 1967, which reads as follows :
“6. Prohibition against contacting authorities other than those to which Parishad servants are immediately subordinate.—(1) No Parishad servant shall address directly any communications to any superior authority other than that to which he is immediately subordinate in any matter relating to his official duties or affecting him personally as a servant of a Zilla Parishad.
Provided that, where a communication is addressed to any superior authority through the authority to which the Parishad servant is immediately subordinate, he may send a copy of such communication directly to the authority to which it is addressed.
(2) No Parishad servant shall approach any person (official or non-official) other than the officer to whom he is immediately subordinate, in order to enlist support in respect of a matter affecting him personally as a servant of Zilla Parishad.
(3) No Parishad servant shall seek an interview with-
(a) any Minister or Secretary to Government unless previously permitted by the Chief Executive Officer;
(b) any other superior authority, unless previously permitted by the authority to which he is immediately subordinate.
(4) Every application for appointment or promotion shall be submitted by a Parishad servant through such authority or authorities as may be laid down by departmental orders.
(5) No Parishad servant shall bring or attempt to bring direct or indirect influence in any manner on any person, whether official or non-official, and whether connected with the Zilla Parishad or not, in any matter relating to the terms and conditions of his service.”
4. It is very clear that the petitioner, by committing breach of this Rule, directly approached the Chief Minister of the State and asked for his intervention in the order of transfer. It is really regretted that the Deputy Secretary, without paying attention to this Rule, has issued the order dated 9-8-2001. The learned Government Pleader states that the Deputy Secretary might have intervened on the ground that the father of the petitioner is 87 years of age and is sick.
5. When all the powers relating to Zilla Parishad employees are vested in the Chief Executive Officer, the State Government has no reason to interfere in the day-to-day administration of the Zilla Parishad. It is not an unique case that the employee is having father of 87 years of age and that too sick. Whether the State Government is going to interfere in all such matters by passing the authority and powers of the Chief Executive Officer? The explanation given by the learned Government Pleader is not at all acceptable. Otherwise, every employee of the Zilla Parishad will start approaching the Chief Minister by passing the Chief Executing Officer and seek order from the Deputy Secretary for intervention in the orders passed by the Chief Executing Officer. We do not think that the State Government or for that matter the Chief Minister wants that there should be such a position created by such orders.
6. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and he makes a statement that in routine course this representation was made to the Chief Minister. It is really regretted that if the petitioner is considering that there is a routine course for making such representation to the Chief Minister, it appears that the employees of the Zilla Parishad are under wrong impression as to under whom they are serving.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also argues that there was a ban on the orders of transfer as per the Circular dated 19-05-2001 and in spite of that the order of transfer was issued and, therefore, the petitioner has approached the Chief Minister. It was sufficient for the petitioner to bring this position to the notice of the Chief Executive Officer and he ought to have waited till the Chief Executive Officer passes necessary orders. He had other options open if his request had not been considered as per the service rules, but, directly approaching the Chief Minister by committing breach of Rule 6 is definitely a misconduct.
8. Here, we find that the Chief Executive Officer is strong enough to apply his authority as per the provisions of law without caring for interference from the State Government. Therefore, the Chief Executive Officer or the concerned Executive Engineer may start any departmental action against the petitioner for committing breach of Rule 6, which is quoted above.
9. With this, writ petition is dismissed in limine.