Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1668
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA
R. Mohanasundaram
Versus
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Others
W.P.No.9599 of 2009
Decided on: 10-06-2009
For the Petitioner:S. Periyasamy for M/s. B. Soundarapandian, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S.N. Kirubanandam, Special Govt. Pleader (Forest).
An order of transfer should not be passed as a form of punishment without providing the affected party with an opportunity to defend themselves against adverse remarks and allegations.
Headnote:
Transfer - Administrative Reasons - 2009(3) MLJ 727 (SC), A.Micheal Raj V. Director General of Police Chennai (W.A.No.1138 of 2008), Sevugan, S. V. The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District (2006 (2) CTC 486), W.A.(MD)Nos.5 and 7 of 2007 - The impugned order of transfer was passed not on administrative reasons, but on some adverse remarks and allegations received against the petitioner and as such the transfer was passed by way of punishment. The transfer order was quashed as it was passed without giving any opportunity for the petitioner to give explanation for such adverse remarks and allegations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Forest Ranger, sought relief to quash an order transferring him to another division, alleging that the transfer was motivated and vindictive due to his strict actions against accused persons. The petitioner claimed that the transfer was based on false allegations and malafide, and sought the order to be set aside.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned transfer order was not based on administrative reasons, but on adverse remarks and allegations against the petitioner, amounting to punishment without providing an opportunity for explanation. The court quashed the transfer order, allowing the department to initiate appropriate action in accordance with the law, providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity for a proper enquiry.
Issues: The issues revolved around the grounds for the petitioner's transfer, whether it was based on administrative reasons or punishment, and the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to address the adverse remarks and allegations against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal precedents to establish that an order of transfer should not be passed as a form of punishment without providing the affected party with an opportunity to defend themselves against adverse remarks and allegations.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned transfer order and allowed the department to take appropriate action in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the petitioner to address any complaints against him.
1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the impugned order of transfer passed by the second respondent dated 15. 2009 in his proceedings in S.O.No.16/09/Pa.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Forest Ranger, Kallakurichi range and he is having unblemished record of service. The petitioner suddenly received the impugned order transferring him from Kallakurichi range office to Villupuram division and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 20.5.2009 through the third respondent herein. The said order of transfer is stated to be on Administrative reasons. The petitioner states that the impugned order of transfer is tainted with malafide and vindictive in nature. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has taken stringent action against the persons who have committed offence under the Wild life and the Forest Act and certain accused are having grievance against the petitioner alleging that false cases have been foisted against them. It is stated by the petitioner that one Gopi on 15. 2009 threatened and challenged that the petitioner will be transferred and the petitioner has also given complaint against the said Gopi and a First Information Report was registered in Cr.No.205 of 2009, Chinnasalem Police Station. It is stated by the petitioner that as the petitioner was strict and effectively taking stringent action against the accused persons, the said persons, being aggrieved against the petitioner, caused problem to the petitioner which resulted in the issuance of the impugned transfer order and the said transfer order is highly motivated and vindictive and as such the petitioner being left without no other alternative has come forward with the present petition seeking the above said relief.
3. Mr.S.Periyasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order of transfer was passed not on the ground of Administrative reasons as stated in the impugned order of transfer but on the ground of certain adverse false allegations levelled against the petitioner and as such the impugned order is unsustainable in law. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the counter it is categorically stated that there are certain adverse remarks levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner also committed certain dereliction of duties and irregularities and only on those grounds the impugned order of transfer was passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2009(3) MLJ 727 (SC) contended that the impugned order of transfer is unsustainable as the said order is passed only on the basis of certain adverse remarks and allegations levelled against the petitioner and such transfer would amount to be a punishment. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the above said decision the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the transfer order passed not on the basis of genuine factors but on a irreverent ground i.e., on the allegations made against the delinquent officer, then such order of transfer would attract the principles of malice in law. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, Special Government Pleader (Forest) contended that the impugned order of transfer was mainly passed on Administrative reasons. It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioner said to have registered certain false cases which resulted in law and order problem as group of public gathered and garrowed in front of the office of the petitioner which resulted in law and order problem and as such the respondents are left with no other alternative except to transfer the petitioner with a view to avoid law and orde
