IMPORTANT POINT
Transfers in public service can be made on administrative grounds without detailed justification, provided they do not violate statutory rules or are made in bad faith.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“… to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Proceedings Roc.No.65-c(1)/A1/2023-24 dated 23-06-2023 transferring the petitioner from the Post of Assistant Audit Officer in the O/O the District Audit Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram to the post of Assistant Audit Officer(AMRUT) Municipal Council Gudivada as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.71 Finance (H.R.IPLG. & Policy) Department dated 17-05-2023 and consequently set aside the Proceedings Roc.No.65-c(1)/A1/2023-24 dated 23-06-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent …”

2. a) The averments in the writ affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Auditor in the office of the District Audit Office, Kakinada, on 06.07.1997, through the selection process. In the year, 2002, the petitioner was promoted to Senior Auditor and further promoted to Assistant Audit Officer, in the year, 2018. Petitioner worked in the capacity of Assistant Audit Officer in State Audit (ZP), Kakinada, from January 2020. Later petitioner was transferred to Rajamahendravaram and on 30.06.2022, she was also made in-charge District Audit Officer, to the East Godavari District.

b) The petitioner’s husband, who is physically challenged, is also an employee of State Audit and he was working as Examiner of accounts, in the Municipal Corporation, Vizianagaram. Petitioner’s husband was later transferred to Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 17.05.2023.

c) While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was transferred to Gudivada Municipal Council vide proceedings in Roc.No.65- C/a1/2023-24 dated 31.05.2023 and the same was kept in abeyance by proceedings dated 01.06.2023. However, by proceedings in Roc.No.30802/15-1/C1/2023 dated 22.06.2023 petitioner was removed from the in-charge post of District Audit Officer and was transferred to Gudivada Municipal Council by proceedings dated 23.06.2023, before completion of one year in Rajamahendravaram, where she joined on 30.06.2022. The said transfer is contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 17.05.2023. Hence, the writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.3. It was contended, inter alia, that the transfer orders were issued as per the Rules. The time limit of two years and five years as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.71 are applicable only for request transfers and mandatory transfers respectively. In the case of the petitioner, the transfer was made under administrative grounds, based on the complaints received from the staff regarding the harassment made by the petitioner.

b) The transfer was affected in accordance with the guidelines of the Government and the Head of the Department and thus, it does not suffer from any infirmity and arbitrariness. The transfer order dated 31.05.2023 was initially kept under abeyance on the ground that an Inquiry was going on against the petitioner, based on the representations submitted by agitated employees. The Inquiry officer proposed to conduct an Inquiry on 10.05.2023. In the meanwhile petitioner went on leave from 06.05.2023. The inquiry was conducted on 10.05.2023 and the report is awaited.

c) Subsequently, the abeyance order was revoked vide memo dated 01.06.2023. Therefore, the petitioner was relieved vide proceedings dated 23.06.2023. The petitioner refused to receive the orders issued on 31.05.2023. The petitioner, by securing the copies of relieving orders from the staff approached this Court by misrepresenting the facts. Respondent No.3, after assessing the prevailing situation transferred the petitioner and the same was endorsed by respondent No.2. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Respondents 5 to 19 also filed a counter affidavit with similar averments as pleaded by respondent No.3.

5. Heard Sri Chandra Sekhar Il