A transfer order issued on administrative grounds is not punitive in nature and does not amount to a reduction in rank unless the employee is demoted to a lower category.

(17.3.1994)

1. The writ petition is directed against an order of transfer passed on 17.1.1994 under R. 40(a) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial service Rules transferring the petitioner Deputy Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Madras, who is posted as Head-clerk, Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Tiruchirapalli in the existing vacancy on administrative grounds. The petitioner came up before this court challenging this order mainly complaining that the order of transfer has resulted in reduction in the rank of the petitioner. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Small Causes is classified as belonging to category-2 of clause-1 and class IV deals with the corresponding service in the moffusil courts. The post of the Head-Clerk, Chief Judicial Magistrates Court is classified as belonging to category-3. As such the petitioners complaint is that the rank of the petitioner was reduced from category 2 to 3 by the order of transfer. The petitioner alleges that the result of the order of transfer is that the petitioner is demoted from category-2. to category-3. As such, though it is an order of transfer, it amounts to reduction in rank. Therefore, the impugned order is passed arbitrarily. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is at present the senior most in his category awaiting to be promoted to the next category as Sheristadar, and if the order of transfer is implemented the petitioner would be deprived of his promotional opportunities. It is also alleged that the transfer has been made on the basis of an anonymous complaint, which is a punitive transfer and hence it is unsustainable, and this petitioner has pointed out that the transfer should not be the end-result of the complaint because the concerned individual would have no opportunity to defend himself. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the trend of forwarding anonymous complaints has been on the increase even by persons who are aggrieved by the action of an honest government servant, and the order is vitiated by legal mala fides as it has been deliberately worded in a harmless manner. It is also pointed out that the post of Deputy Registrar now held by the petitioner has the benefit of special pay and S.C. allowance which are consequently lost by the transfer.

2. The Writ Petition was admitted by this court on 25.1.1994, and a notice was ordered to the Respondents, returnable by 31.1.1994. When the case was listed on 4.2.1994 the learned Government Advocate wanted time to file counter till 14.2.1994 and this court passed an interim stay till then. However, when the matter came up for hearing on the next occasion on 11.2.1994, without complying with the order or stay counter-affidavit has been filed by the Registrar of this Court and certain averments are made in part 3 of the counter, which in my view was not palatable. So, it was observed by this court that this court is not inclined to take up the petition to vacate the stay filed by the Registrar in W.M.P. Nos. 3494 to 3496 of 1994 till the interim order is implemented by the Registrar of this court. The Registrar was directed to put back the writ petitioner to his original place in pursuance of the earlier order of this court on 4.2.1994. Unfortunately the Registrar of the High Court, who is the respondent, filed a writ appeal in W.A. No. 290 of 1994 against this order and the Writ Appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mishra, J., and S.M. Ali Mohamed, J., and a caveat seems to have been filed by the Writ Petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner has taken notice before the Division Bench. It seems the Division Bench heard learned counsel for the petitioner on 21.2.1994 and after issuing notice of the motion ordered that the writ petition will be heard along with the Writ Appeal only against the interim order passed by this cou