SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 1120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Dr. M. Penchalaiah, S/o. Venkataiah - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2150 of 2025
Decided On : 28-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri P.V.Krishnaiah
For the Respondent: Sri K.Ramalingeswara Rao, GP for Services-II, Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar

Legal malice is insufficient to challenge a transfer order unless clear procedural violations or malafide intentions can be proven.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Transfer of Government servant - Writ petition impugning transfer orders on grounds of illegality and arbitrariness - Court stated transfer is an incident of service and generally not interfered with unless shown to be mala fide or punitive - Mandatory statutory rules must be adhered to. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 30, and 32)

(B) Legal Malice - Definition and implications of legal malice discussed - The actions of appointing authority and method of transfer were upheld by the Court as compliant with existing rules. (Paras 18, 20, and 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged his transfer as DM & HO, arguing it to be punitive and violative of constitutional rights due to procedural non-compliance and his proximity to retirement.

Findings of Court:
The transfer was in due compliance with administrative essentials and not borne of legal malice. Petitioner had no basis to challenge the transfer of the 5th respondent as it was validly executed on administrative grounds.

Issues: The legality of the transfer of the petitioner and the 5th respondent as DM & HO were main contentions before the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the employer retains the prerogative to transfer employees on administrative grounds unless there is a substantial showing of mala fide intent. Transfers are inherently part of service conduct and should not be equated with punitive measures. Judicial interference is warranted only under extraordinary circumstances.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. transfer orders' legality and adherence to procedures. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding transfer's punitive nature. (Para 6 , 8)
3. court's reasoning on administrative prerogative. (Para 9 , 31)
4. definitions and implications of legal malice. (Para 10 , 15 , 19)
5. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 32)

ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

The above Writ Petition is filed impugning the G.O.Rt.No.781 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (B.I) Department dated 21.12.2024, as modified by G.O.Rt.No.1 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (B.I) Department dated 01.01.2025, whereby the petitioner was transferred and G.O.Rt.No.782 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (B.I) Department dated 21.12.2024 issued by 1st respondent transferring the 5th respondent to the place of petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon on 06.01.1992. He was promoted to Deputy Civil Surgeon on 01.12.2007 and Civil Surgeon on 23.10.2019. The petitioner was posted as Additional DM & HO Chittoor, and subsequently transferred and posted as DM & HO, Nellore vide G.O.Rt.No.371, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department dated 06.05.2022.

b) Be that as it may, the 1st respondent promoted 21 Deputy Civil Surgeons (General Line) for the panel year 2023-2024 and issued posting orders vide G.O.Rt.No.782 dated 21.12.2024, wherein the 5th respondent was posted as DM & HO, Nellore in the petitioner's place. The petitioner was transferred vide G.O.Rt.No.781 dated 21.12.2024 to Rampachodavaram, A.S.Raju District. Impugning the said transfer orders and also the transfer of the 5th respondent in the place of the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.30642 of 2024. Pending the said writ petition, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1 HM & FW Department dated 01.01.2024 modifying the transfer of petitioner from Rampachodravaram, A.S. Raju District by C.S.R.M.O 300 Bedded Super Speciality Hospital, Kadapa in the existing vacancy caused due to unwillingness letter submitted by Dr.K.Padmavathi, Deputy DM & HO, Markapur, Prakasam District. The petitioner assailed his transfer as malafide, without prior concurrence and stigmatic. The petitioner was transferred at the fag end of his career i.e. before one year of his retirement.

c) In respect of the transfer of the 5th respondent to the place of the petitioner, the petitioner contended that the respondent authorities failed to adhere to the procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.273 HM & FW (02) Department dated 21.05.1999 and G.O.Rt.No.780 HM & FW (B1) Department dated 15.09.2014. The 5th respondent does not have the experience to hold the post of DM & HO.

3. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 1st respondent. It was contended, interalia, that the Government took a comprehensive view of the performance of DM & HOs in the State. Certain DM & HOs are not performing their duties up to the mark and are poor in achieving the desired targets as per key performance indicators. As such, the Government, keeping in mind, that there is a ban on transfers, circulated the file in e-office to the Chief Minister through the Minister for Health, Medical and Family Welfare duly appraising the facts and the Chief Minister approved on 20.12.2024. Accordingly, transfers and posting orders are issued including the petitioner and 5th respondent. The transfer of the petitioner is made on administrative grounds. The concurrence of the Finance Department was obtained vide U.O.No.FIN01-HR0PDPP (TRPO)/188/2024-HR-I (2665746), dated 30.12.2024, as the secretariat instance of e-office was not available from 21.12.2024 to 28.12.2024 due to migration of e-office system to the latest version. The Government issued a concurrence order vide G.O.Rt.No.784, HM & FW (B1) Department dated 31.12.2024.

b) It was pleaded in the counter affidavit that the 5th respondent has the required

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top