Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
The Registrar, High Court, Madras
Versus
Vasudevan, A.K. and Others
W.A.Nos.1132 of 1995 to 1134 of 1995
Decided On : 23-11-1995
The court referred to Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which provides protection to government servants in disciplinary matters. The court also referred to various decisions and principles of administrative law to analyze the legality and validity of the transfer order. No specific statutes were discussed in the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were working as Bailiffs in the City Civil Court, Madras, were transferred to various courts outside Madras. They challenged the transfer order on the grounds of illegality and violation of the Constitution. The learned Judge held that while the petitioners could be transferred, the transfer order was punitive in nature and violated the principles of natural justice. The writ petitions were allowed and the transfer order was quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the nature of transfer as an incidence of service and held that it can only be questioned on grounds of mala fides or violation of specific provisions or guidelines. The court also emphasized that transfer is not a punishment and does not affect the service conditions or career prospects of the employee. The court further stated that an order of transfer cannot be considered as a stigma unless it is actuated by mala fides. The court found that the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioners were not substantiated and dismissed their claims. The court also held that the transfer order was made in public interest and to avoid further embarrassment to the court and staff.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfer of a government servant is an incidence of service and can only be questioned on grounds of mala fides or violation of specific provisions or guidelines. Transfer is not a punishment and does not affect the service conditions or career prospects of the employee. An order of transfer cannot be considered as a stigma unless it is actuated by mala fides.
Result: The writ appeals are allowed, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside, and the writ petitions are dismissed.
S.S. Subramani, J.
Writ Appeal No.1132 of 1995 is against the order passed in W.P. No. 16243 of 1992, Writ Appeal No.1133 of 1995 is against the order passed in W.P.No.16245 of 1992 and Writ Appeal No. 1134 of 1995 is against the order passed in W.P. No. 16244 of 1992.
2. These writ appeals are filed by the Registrar of the High Court of Judicature, Madras, against an Order passed in the above writ petitions by a learned Judge of this Court, dated 211. 1994.
3. For the sake of convenience, in these writ appeals, the array of parties will be referred to as per their rank in the writ petitions.
4. All the writ petitions raise a common question. The petitioners in the respective writ petitions were working as Bailiffs in the City Civil Court, Madras, and, as per Official Memorandum of this Court, dated 10. 1992, they were directed to be transferred to various courts outside Madras, and the said order was implemented by communicating the same to the petitioners, by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, who is the first respondent in all the writ petitions.
.5. Even though separate writ petitions have been filed, the averments are the same, and they may be stated briefly.
.6. All the writ petitioners belong to Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service. They joined the Service as Process Writers in the Court of Small Causes, Madras, and they were promoted as Junior Bailiffs and later they were promoted as Senior Bailiffs. It is stated that they were discharging their duties without any blemish, and they have not suffered any punishment. It is further stated that they were surprised and shocked when they received on 110. 1992 an order from the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, transferring them to various courts, alleging that the transfer was on administrative grounds and that they should be relieved on the forenoon of 110. 1992 with instructions to join duty in the new station forthwith. It is further said that the Order of transfer is liable to be set aside on various grounds. It is also stated that the petitioners have certain domestic problems on account of the transfer. In the various grounds impeaching the transfer order, it is said that the order is illegal and violative of the provisions of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, the post of Senior Bailiff is a non-transferable post, and service under the respective district unit of each Civil Judicial District is separate and distinct. There is no common State-wide Seniority list for any of the cadres coming under Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service. It is stated that an equivalent post of Senior Bailiff within the City of Madras is available only in the Office of Court of Small Causes, Madras, and hence any transfer can be effected only as between City Civil Court, Madras, and Court of Small Causes, Madras, and not outside the Madras District Unit. It is further stated that the order of transfer has affected the promotional prospects of the petitioners. The petitioners would say that the transfer order is liable to be set aside on the ground of mala fides and other illegalities. It is averred in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions that even though the Order of transfer is characterised as “on administrative grounds”, a perusal of the entire order would disclose that the impugned Order is punitive in nature and casts a stigma on the services of the petitioners. It is further stated that this Court is entitled to pierce the veil and examine the real intent of the Order on a perusal of the other portions of the order as well as connected records. According to the petitioners, a perusal of the order discloses that it has been issued at the instance of a communication received from this Court on 10. 1992 and that a copy of the order has also been marked to the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras, for information, and this leads to an obvious presumption that the Order is at the instance of a complaint
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
