Transfer orders can be challenged on the ground of mala fide or violation of statutory rules, and should be in the interest of administration and welfare of the students, not punitive in nature.

1. The petitioner is a Mridangam Artiste and was appointed as Lecturer in the Tamil Nadu Government Music College, Chennai, on 06.07.1998. On 14.8.2014, a memo was issued to him by the second respondent calling for explanation why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for his alleged misconduct and he submitted his reply on 18.8.2014 to the second respondent explaining the factual position. However, without considering his explanation dated 18.8.2014, by order dated 18.8.2014, the second respondent requested the first respondent to transfer the petitioner to some other music college and on the basis of the letter of the second respondent dated 18.8.2014, the first respondent, by his proceedings dated 18.8.2014 passed orders transferring the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu Music College, Madurai, and consequently, on the basis of the proceedings of the first respondent, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 19.8.2014, relieved the petitioner from the Music College at Chennai. Aggrieved over the impugned proceedings of the first and second respondents, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition challenging the transfer on the ground that the transfer is vitiated by mala fide and the transfer is also punitive in nature and therefore, the impugned proceedings of the respondents are liable to be set aside.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was appointed in the year 1998, till 14.8.2014, no charge memo has been issued against the petitioner and even as per the show cause notice, the petitioner along with another teacher C.David went to the Bursar and requested the Bursar to rectify certain defects in his room and on that ground, he was transferred and when the transfer is punitive in nature, it has to be set aside. He relied upon the judgment rendered in Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others [(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592]; and R.Mohanasundaram v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and others [2009 Writ L.R.918], in support of his contention.

3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit filed along with the Miscellaneous Petition to vacate the interim stay and contended that the transfer order is not punitive in nature and taking into consideration the interest of the institution and the students, the transfer order was made and there is no mala fide. He submitted that the petitioner along with another teacher Mr. C. David and the students of Mridangam Department went to the Bursar Room and gheraoed her to fulfil certain demands in respect of his class room, for which a memo was served on him by the Principal of the College. It is further stated in the memo that various complaints were received against the petitioner and from those complaints, it was brought out that the petitioner was not performing his duties diligently and therefore, show cause notice was given and the second respondent also sent a letter dated 18.8.2014 to the first respondent wherein it was stated that the interest of the students would be affected if the petitioner was allowed to continue in the same College and therefore, on the basis of the request of the Principal, the transfer was effected and there is no mala fide and the transfer order cannot be termed as punishment as it has nothing to do with disciplinary proceedings. He further submitted that even assuming that the transfer order was effected pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, it cannot be termed as bad in law since the petitioner is unable to prove mala fide on the part of the respondents in effecting transfer. He submitted that the petitioner has been working in the Tamil Nadu Music College, Chennai for the past 16 years and having regard to the interest of the students in the music College, Chennai, the petitioner was transferred to Madurai and there is no mala fide. He also relied upon the judgment rendered in Union of India an