Ramachandran Nair, J.

The appellant, an IAS Officer in the Tripura-Manippur cadre, who has also served on deputation in Government of India and also in Kerala, was selected by the Public Enterprises Selection Board as Chairman cum Managing Director of a Central Public Sector Company, namely M/s. Madras Fertilizers Limited(hereinafter referred to as the Company for short) located at Chennai. His selection was for appointment on permanent absorption basis. He was relieved from the State service on 04/09/2002 and joined as the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Company on 06/09/2002. He completed his 5 year tenure on 05/09/2007 and was allowed to retire from the Company. The appellant's terms of appointment as CMD of the Company was issued only after six months of his joining the service i.e. on 31/03/2003. There was no provision in the terms of appointment to give him transfer allowance from Tripura to Madras. He claimed a total sum of Rs.1.07 lakhs towards transfer allowance from the Company. The Finance Department verified the claim and requested the Company Secretary to place it before the Board of Directors of the Company for considering for approval. According to the appellant, the claim was approved by the Board in their meeting, and the same was later approved in the General Body Meeting of the Company. The specific case of the appellant is that the Director Board which approved his transfer claim comprised of senior level officials like Financial Advisor to Government of India, a Senior Officer from the Ministry and representatives from the Financial Institutions, namely, ICICI Bank and IDBI, and also two representatives of Government of Iran, another shareholder of the Company. Though there was no dispute with regard to the reimbursement of transfer allowance to the appellant by the Company, the issue was raised by the Vigilance Officer, who was appointed in the Company in the year 2006. The appellant as the Managing Director, declined transfer claim of the Vigilance Officer, who came on transfer posting from FACT Cochin to the Company at Madras. According to the appellant, the Vigilance Officer joined in September, 2004 and claimed transfer allowance in 2005 not only for him but also for his wife, who was a teacher regularly employed in Chennai. When the Appellant disallowed the transfer claim of the Vigilance Officer, he made allegation against the appellant that the transfer claim made by the appellant and approved by the Board of Directors was irregular, based on which an enquiry was instituted in 2006. Even though based on the Vigilance Officer's report, enquiry was conducted by the Government of India by calling for explanation from the appellant in May, 2007, and reply was promptly filed by the appellant on 30/05/2007, nothing was heard from Government of India until the Appellant retired on 05/09/2007. Since the appellant's final retirement benefits were not released to him on account of the pendency of enquiry from 2006 onwards, the appellant sent a reminder in January, 2008. However, nothing was heard from the Government till 29/04/2010 when Ext.P15 was issued to him declaring that the transfer allowance taken by him which is for Rs.1.07 lakhs was irregular and the amount is to be recovered from him with interest. Another order received by the appellant which is almost contemporaneous with Ext.P15 is Ext.P16 dated 29/04/2010 wherein the Government of India has expressed displeasure about the selection of General Manager (Marketing and Distribution) made by the appellant in the Company in the year 2003. The appellant challenged Exts.P15 & P16 orders before this Court by filing Writ Petition which was rejected by the learned Single Judge for the reason that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the WP(C) filed challenging Exts.P15 & P16. It is against this judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant.

2. We have heard the appellant in person and also Shri. P.P arameswaran