Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
T Tirupathi Rao - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondent
W.P.Nos.21558, 25482 and 30689 of 2024
Decided On : 13-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Transfer of Government employee - The petitioner challenged the transfer order as illegal and arbitrary, claiming it was punitive and not based on valid grounds. The court found no malice or illegality in the transfer, which was made on administrative grounds. (Paras 11, 16, 29)
(B) Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review in transfer matters is limited; courts will not interfere unless the transfer is shown to be arbitrary or vitiated by malafides. (Paras 16, 18)
(C) Guidelines for Transfers - G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 has statutory force but does not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer. (Paras 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Executive Engineer, challenged his transfer from Ongole to Chirala, alleging it was arbitrary and punitive, especially after a complaint against him was dismissed. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The court found the transfer was made on administrative grounds without malice, and the petitioner could not claim immunity based on his wife's employment. (Paras 29-30)
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer proceedings were legally sustainable and if they were arbitrary or punitive. (Paras 11, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfer was valid as it was based on administrative grounds, and the petitioner had no right to remain absent from the new posting. (Paras 29-30)
Result: W.P.No.21558 of 2024 is dismissed, along with the consequential petitions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges transfer order (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. previous transfer and representation (Para 5) |
| 3. petitioner claims transfer is punitive (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's limited interference in transfers (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. transfer made on administrative grounds (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed (Para 30 , 31) |
COMMON ORDER :
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioner, Deputy Executive Engineer, PR (PA to SE, PR) Circle Office, Ongole filed the above writ petition 21558 of 2024 impugning the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Procs.No.Ser- III/Transfers-Dy.E.Es/2024-44, dated 20.09.2024 transferring the petitioner from Ongole to Chirala as illegal and arbitrary.
3. W.P.No.25482 of 2024 is filed to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in obstructing the petitioner from discharging his duties as Deputy Executive Engineer, SE PR Circle, Ongole, despite the impugned transfer order dated 20.09.2024 issued by the third respondent being suspended by this Court, illegal and arbitrary.
4. W.P.No.30689 of 2024 is filed to declare the action of the 4th respondent in not paying the salary to the petitioner, even though the petitioner is being continued in service as Deputy Executive Engineer in the office of 4th respondent in terms of the interim order passed in W.P.No.21558 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.
5. Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner while working as Deputy Executive Engineer at Kondepi, was transferred to PR to SE Circle, Ongole on 30.06.2022 and since then has been discharging duties. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 prescribing the guidelines for transfers and postings of employees lifting the ban on transfers. The petitioner made a representation dated 26.08.2024 seeking retention because his wife is working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Ongole. However, without considering the same, the transfer order, impugned in the writ petition, was issued. The transfer order does not contain any reason. To accommodate the 5th respondent, another Deputy Executive Engineer for extraneous reasons, the petitioner was transferred. Hence, the writ petition.
6. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 3rd respondent. It was contended, interalia, that earlier the Government vide Memo No.1385171/2021-Estt-1, dated 03.04.2021 of PR & RD, (Estt-1) Department have informed that the Collector & District Magistrate, Prakasam District surrendered the petitioner, Deputy Executive Engineer, PRI Sub Division, Kondepi to PR Department. As per the Procgs.No.Vig.III(1)/360/2021 dated 03.05.2021, the petitioner was directed to work on Other Duty basis at the office of Superintending Engineer, PR, Ongole on administrative grounds. Thereafter during the transfers in the year 2022, the petitioner was transferred and posted to the office of SE, PR, Prakasam on administrative grounds.
b) A complaint, made by one S.K.Rahul, an anti-corruption Social Worker of Santhapeta of Ongole, was received from the Government on 04.09.2024 against the petitioner that he had been harassing women employees with vulgar language and requested to take immediate action. As per the directions of the Government, the petitioner was transferred and posted at PIU Sub Division, Chirala on administrative grounds.
7. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner. It was contended that one S.K.Rahul sent an e-mail to the Chief Minister’s Office and others by attaching the paper clippings. The Principal Secretary to the Panchayat Raj Department forwarded the e-mail to the 3rd respondent. Earlier, based on an anonymous complaint, the 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry and furnish a report. As per the directions of Superintende
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers made on administrative grounds are valid unless shown to be arbitrary or malicious.
Transfer orders must adhere to established guidelines; failure to do so constitutes arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The court affirmed that transfer orders are administrative decisions and should not be interfered with unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
Transfers of office bearers must adhere to statutory guidelines; failure to do so constitutes arbitrariness, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of transfer is a prerogative of the employer, and the courts cannot interfere with transfer orders made on administrative grounds un....
The transfer of an employee is within the prerogative power of the employer, who can withdraw, alter or modify any previous order of transfer. The court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Co....
Transfers of employees in public service are generally not subject to judicial review unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
Legal malice is insufficient to challenge a transfer order unless clear procedural violations or malafide intentions can be proven.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
