Transfer on administrative grounds cannot be interfered with unless strong grounds of malafide are pleaded and proved against the authority.

1. Earlier the petitioner was placed under suspension on 10.12.2009 by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, the 1st respondent herein, pending enquiry into certain complaints and that disciplinary action was contemplated. Subsequently, the petitioner, made a representation dated 17.12.2009 and sought for revocation of suspension. By proceedings dated 19.01.2010, the Joint Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Epidemics), called upon the petitioner to appear on 28.01.2010 and conducted an enquiry in connection with the disciplinary action contemplated against the petitioner.

2. Thereafter by order dated 12.02.2010, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai the 1st respondent herein has revoked the order of suspension and reinstated the petitioner in service and posted him to the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Cuddalore. The order of revocation was not served on the petitioner. Within a period of two weeks, by another order dated 26.02.2010, the place of posting of the petitioner has been modified and that he was directed to report before the Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre, Ayangudi. Being aggrieved by the order of transfer of the petitioner, from the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Cuddalore, to the office of the Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre, Ayangudi, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Assailing, the correctness of the order of transfer, Mrs.G.Chamki Raj, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that primarily the impugned order of transfer is a reflection of sheer malafide at the instance of the 2nd respondent who has been impleaded in her personal capacity. She further submitted that for two instances, set out in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the supporting affidavit, the 2nd respondent was not satisfied with the action of the writ petitioner and therefore, there was ill-motive behind the order of transfer.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, one incident related to preparation of bills, when the petitioner refused to acknowledge the expenditure incurred for electrical repair works, which usually is approved by Public Works Department. In yet another case, finding that the bills prepared by the office contained certain irregularities, the petitioner refused to sign and approve the same.

5. Taking this Court through the explanation dated 17.12.2009, submitted to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lawful protest made against the Deputy Director of Health Services, Cuddalore, after getting permission from the police condemning his discriminate and vindictive action against the staff working in the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Cuddalore, has been construed as a misconduct committed by the petitioner. She further submitted that 250 staff members participated in the protest and that they have not criticised either the Government or the schemes, but, the protest was only an expression of displeasure made against the conduct of the 2nd respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that, in this factual background, the 2nd respondent, seemed to have sent complaints to Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai alleging that the petitioner had instigated other office staff working in the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Cuddalore, to protest against the district administration and in such circumstances, this suspension order dated 10.12.2009, came to be passed. She also submitted that when a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Joint Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Epidemics) on 28.01.2010 on the directions of the Director of Health Services, Chennai, neither the copy of the complaint was furnished nor any allegations were made against the petitioner, during