An order of transfer that is motivated by mala fides, violates transfer policy, and is made to circumvent disciplinary procedures is liable to be quashed by the court.

T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.

This Writ appeal is directed against the judgment of V. Ramaswami, J. who dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant when he sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in connection with the order dated 14-7-1977 passed by the first respondent, as Acting Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, in and by which the appellant-petitioner was transferred from the Madras Division Office to Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh and to direct the respondents to give effect to an accredited policy of transfer laid down by the Head Office of the Food Corporation of India at New Delhi in the matter of the transfer of employees III and IV Cadre of Corporation.

2. The appellant joined the service of the Food Corporation from 1955. He started his career at Coimbatore. He was transferred to Madras in 1958. Thereafter he was transferred to Cochin in 1970 and re-transferred to Madras in 1972 and again he was sent to Andhra Pradesh in 1975 and thereafter he was brought back to Madras in 1976. On 14-7-1977 the impugned order of transfer was made by the first respondent transferring him from Madras to Adilabad and he was relieved with effect from the afternoon of that date. The appellant did not join duty but came to this Court challenging the order of transfer. Under orders of this Court he was given joining time till 6-1-1978, when, it is common ground, he joined at Adilabad. On the ground that the order of transfer is vitiated by bad faith and that it was in the nature of a punishment inflicted on him due to his personal differences with the first respondent and that the first respondent circumvented the process of disciplinary proceedings and adopted the devious method of transferring the appellant and thus punishing him, he came to Court for the grant of the above-said relief. It was also the case of the appellant that as he was a well known Union Leader he was being shifted from time to time without following the guidelines in the matter of transfer which provided that a person should be stationed at one place for at least five years and even after the expiry of such a prescribed time, he could be transferred preferably within the region. He attempted to substantiate the above contentions before the learned single Judge, who considered the basis on which the appellant raised such contentions and ultimately held the view that the transfer was not motivated for the stated in the affidavit and argued before him and that the circumstances did not show that it was by way of punishment that the transfer was effected. He, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. It is as against this, the writ appeal has been filed.

3. Mr. Venkataswamy, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that on the pleadings in this care there is practically an admission of the part of the first respondent that he did have resort to the order transfer because of the various alleged irregularities bordering on misconduct committed by the appellant. It is therefore, contended that no more proof of mala fides is necessary.

4. The next contention is that the guidelines which are to be followed while effecting a transfer of an employee of the Corporation have been completely ignored and he would also urge that those guidelines were deliberately brushed aside because the first respondent was willy-nilly bent upon transferring the appellant when he was acting as Zonal Manager so as to give an open expression, to his vendetta against the appellant. He would take us through the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent which, according to him, brings out the real motive behind the order of transfer and would plead that though the order of transfer appears to be a normal order, it is in effect an order vitiated by mala fides or lack of good faith.

5. His third and last contention which also elaborates the earlier contentions is that the appellant was not even given the six days joining time which was necessary;