IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
P. Sithaiyan – Appellant
Versus
Chief Internal Audit Officer TANGEDCO/Audit Branch, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.Nos. 14006 of 2018 & W.M.P.No. 16541 of 2018
Decided on : 16-04-2019
Transfer - Administrative Transfers - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - [Writ Petition] - [Transfer of Government Employee] - [No specific Act or Section referred]
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a government employee, challenged an administrative transfer from Erode Region to Vellore Region citing personal inconvenience and medical treatment as reasons for challenging the transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that administrative transfers are within the prerogative of the department and can be issued on various grounds, including the interest of public administration. The court emphasized that administrative transfers are not to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless there is evidence of mala fide intention or violation of statutory rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of administrative transfers, the grounds on which transfers can be challenged, and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that administrative transfers are a condition of service and can be issued in the interest of public administration. It emphasized that routine administrative transfers should not be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts unless there is evidence of mala fide intention or violation of statutory rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found that the writ petitioner had not established any acceptable legal ground for interference with the administrative order of transfer.
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the fifth respondent in Ku.A.No.000661/401/F.31/318-1/2018. Dated 16.04.2018 connection with the impugned order of transfer and relieving order issued by the fifth respondent in transferring the petitioner and quash the same.)
1. The order of transfer, transferring the writ petitioner from Erode Region to Vellore Region in proceedings dated 16.04.2018, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner is now working as the Assistant Auditing Officer and he is transferred from Erode Region to Vellore Region on administrative grounds. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that writ petitioner is having two more years of service and therefore, the impugned transfer will affect his normal life. It is further stated that the writ petitioner is taking medical treatment at Erode and in the event of transfer to vellore, he will be deprived of taking treatment at Erode. It is further stated that shifting the family to Vellore, will cause so much inconvenience and on these grounds, the impugned order of transfer is challenged.
3. This Court is of the opinion that, the writ petitioner is serving in the responsible post of Assistant Auditing Officer and the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Auditing Officer, is an important one, as they are responsible for identifying the financial irregularities or illegalities. This apart, the writ petitioner has been transferred from Erode Region to Vellore Region, which is also a District Head Quarters and in Vellore the writ petitioner can get best medical treatment as reputed Hospitals are available in Vellore also. Thus, the reasons stated in the order of transfer are not infirm and the writ petitioner is bound to serve, wherever, he is posted. In the present case, the writ petitioner is transferred from Erode Region on administrative grounds.
4. This Court is of an opinion that transfers can be issued on various grounds. On a perusal of the impugned transfer order, it is stated that the writ petitioner is transferred on administrative ground and in the interest of administration. Transfers are imminent in respect of public servants, whenever there is a wide complaint against the employee is made known to the competent authorities. In certain circumstances, there may not be an evidence to prosecute the employee or to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings. However, the competent authorities may of the opinion that further continuance of a public servant in a particular place would cause inconvenience as well as cause some difficult situation for the peaceful functioning of the public administration. Thus, in those circumstances, transfers alone are the remedies in the interest of public administration. Therefore, it is not necessary that there must be a transfer only after conducting an enquiry or initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
5. Administrative transfers are issued on various circumstances and on various grounds. For instance, continuance of certain public servants in a particular post, may not be conducive for the peaceful administration or their further continuance may cause certain troubles to the people, who all are the beneficiaries in the Department. There are various such administrative aspects, which all are the reasons for the administrative transfers. Courts would not be in a position to scrutinize or conduct an enquiry in respect of those reasons for such issuance of the administrative transfers.
6. Administrative transfers are the prerogative of the Department concerned and the competent authorities are the best persons to assess and act accordingly. However, those competent authorities should act in the interest of public and in the event of any illegality or some personal motive, then alone, the employee can approach the Court of law for appropriate remedy. In other words, if a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.