Transfer on administrative exigency held justified.

By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of transfer dated 31-12-2003 passed by the first respondent, transferring the petitioner from the post of Chief Manager (Finance & Administration) of Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, (CIPET is a registered institute under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers) Corporate Office, Chennai to CIPET Centre, Amritsar as Chief Manager (Project).

3. The case of the petitioner is that he has applied for the post of Deputy Director (P&A), but the selection process could not be completed by the authority, who was holding additional charge of the post of Director General of CIPET for want of time. The person holding the office of the first respondent was appointed as Director General in October 2001, but he did not proceed to fill up the post of Deputy Director since he did not like the petitioner. Due to personal animosity, the petitioner was transferred as Chief Manager (Project) to Amritsar, which is purely a technical post for which he is not qualified. There is no common seniority between technical and non-technical personnel and no vacancy of Chief Manager (Project) at Amritsar Centre, CIPET. The first respondent is not empowered to create or re-designate the post on his own, but he has done it by way of the impugned order. The post of Chief Manager (Project) at Amritsar Centre, CIPET is purely a technical one. The first respondent had attempted to avail loan from outside agency contrary to the Memorandum of Association and Regulations of CIPET and the petitioner has brought the same to the notice of the first respondent that relevant Rules and Regulations contemplate advise of the financial advisors to be taken in finance matters like availing loan etc., and put up a dissent note on 11-08-2003. It is also stated that the petitioner had put up a note on 11-08-2003 for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against one Cashier, but no action taken. The impugned order has been issued to take vengeance against the petitioner. It is also canvassed that the first respondent is not a competent person to pass the impugned order. Further, it is added by the petitioner that his children are studying in various institutions at Madras and other domestic reasons and the impugned order has been passed only to victimise the petitioner. In and by the impugned order, he was demoted.

4. The case of the respondents is that as per Administrative Manual (Annexure II) the cadre controlling authority is the Director General. The cadre will be subject to additions and alterations, as may be made from time to time at the discretion of the Director General. As per the annexure III of Administrative Manual, the competent authority for taking disciplinary action against the Deputy Director / Branch Head / Chief Manager (P&A) is the Director General and the appellate authority is the Chairman (President of the Governing Council). The petitioner is the Chief Manager, hence the competent authority is the first respondent and the appellate authority is the second respondent. As against the order of transfer, an appeal remedy is provided before the second respondent which was not opted by the petitioner, hence the writ petition is not maintainable. In Annexure IV of Administrative Manual, under the delegated power - Serial No.12, the Director General is the controlling officer for himself and all personnel under his control. Under clause 13, the Director General has full powers of allocation of functions and duties to the staff under his administrative control. The averment that CIPET has two wings namely technical and non-technical is incorrect. It is also incorrect to state that the Chief Manager (P&A) post is available only at the Corporate Office, Chennai. As per the Organogram of CIPET Corporate approved by the Government of India, Annexure VIII, there is only one sanction