Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3548
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, JJ.
P. Karunakaran
Versus
The Union of India, Southern Railway rep. by the Divisional Railway Manager/P/MAS & Others
W.P. No. 12812 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2013
Decided On : 04-10-2013
For the Petitioner:M. Shreedhar for M/s. M. Shreedhar Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R. Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for P.T. Ramkumar, Advocate.
A transfer made as a punitive measure without affording an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
Headnote:
Transfer - Administrative Grounds - RTI Act - 1980 I LLJ 1, 2006 (2) CTC 468, 2009 (2) SCC 592, 2012 (1) MLJ 289 (SC) = 2011 (12) SCC 137 - The court discussed the legality of the transfer order made on administrative grounds and its punitive nature. The court found that the transfer was made as a punitive measure without affording an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court set aside the transfer order and the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Chief Ticket Inspector, was transferred to Northeast Frontier Railway, Guwahati from Chennai Central Railway Station. The petitioner alleged that the transfer was punitive in nature and made without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order was made as a punitive measure without affording an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court set aside the transfer order and the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer order was made on administrative grounds or as a punitive measure without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a transfer made as a punitive measure without affording an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
Final Decision: The court set aside the transfer order and the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of transfer . His challenge against the said order of transfer before the Tribunal was rejected in O.A.No. 296 of 2013 dated 9.4.2013.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
He is working as Deputy Chief Ticket Inspector at Chennai Central Railway Station for the past 29 years. On 10.6.2012, he boarded the train bearing No.12601 starting from Chennai Central Railway Station by 8.25 p.m for the purpose of checking . He got down at Arakonam. On the very next day he boarded the train No.12674, Cheran Express from Arakonam by 4.45 a.m. and came to Chennai Perambur Railway Station at 5.50 a.m. On alighting at Perambur Railway Station, he was taken to police station by a Sub-Inspector of Police viz., Palaniyandi by making a false allegation as if he robbed a sum of Rs. 2,300/- from a person with mobile phone. No complaint whatsoever was filed by such person. However, the petitioner was dragged to the police station and his house was also searched without any warrant. Pursuant to the above incident, he immediately lodged a complaint on 12.6.2012 against the police personnel to the Inspector General of Railway Police. He also lodged another complaint on 13.6.2012 to the Director General of Police, Chennai, State Human Rights Commission as well as to other authorities. As no action was taken the petitioner sought leave through his request dated 9.7.2012 from his department to file a private complaint against the Railway Police.
3. The petitioner also made an application under the RTI Act to various authorities. The Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission has also through communication dated 21.6.2012 informed the petitioner that the Inspector General of Police (Railways) was directed to enquire into the matter and take necessary action. In the interregnum period, the petitioner was harassed by the Perambur Railway Police and hence he approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.No. 23049 of 2012 seeking for a direction to the police officials not to harass him and the same was also ordered on 23.11.2012. On 14.12.2012 , while he was discharging his duty, he caught six persons travelling without ticket. While he was enquiring them, five other persons came and sought release of those six persons. The petitioner did not oblige which had resulted in filing a complaint by the petitioner to the Inspector of Railway Police on 14.12.2012. The same was registered in Crime No. 798 of 2012.
4. While that being so, he was served with an order of suspension on 14.12.2012 under the guise of contemplating disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in Cr.O.P.No. 31162 of 2012. Subsequently, by an order dated 23.1.2013, the suspension was revoked. However, the petitioner was served with an order of transfer dated 21.1.2013 transferring him to Northeast Frontier Railway, Guwahati from the present place. The said impugned order was challenged in the O.A. stating that the order of transfer is purely punitive in nature and issued in lieu of punishment pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings contemplated. Hence, the order of transfer having been passed as a punitive measure is liable to be set aside.
5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:-
The petitioner's past history reveals that he was antagonistic towards the Vigilance Inspectors and is in the habit of preventing them from doing their lawful duty. A preventive check was conducted on 14.12.2012 based on a source of information that the petitioner was collecting money from the passengers travelling in the coach for the disabled and not issuing any receipt thereby misappropriating the amount due to the Railways. During the course of check on the petitioner on 14.12.2012, he assaulted all the four Vigilance Inspectors and ran away. The petitioner, a professional Boxer, appointed under the Sports quota had a dubious history of various minor and major misco
