The court emphasized the need for the Vigilance Department to effectively address corruption allegations, conduct preliminary enquiries, and take appropriate actions as per the Vigilance Manual and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.342/A3/2022, dated 25.01.2022 on the file of the Respondent No.4 and the consequential impugned order in Na.Ka.No.53/A2/2022 dated 25.01.2022 on the file of the Respondent No.5 and quash the same as illegal.)

1. The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the order of transfer issued to the petitioner by the fourth respondent vide proceedings dated 25.01.2022 and the consequential order issued on the same day by the fifth respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on 17.03.1986 and was promoted to the post of Primary School Headmaster on 05.06.2002 and further promoted to the post of Middle School Headmaster on 02.06.2008 and presently working as Headmaster in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Alangudi, Thiruvarankulam Block, Pudukkottai District.

3. The petitioner states that to his shock and surprise, the fourth respondent has issued the impugned order of transfer dated 25.01.2022, which amounts to punishment. Though the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds, the nature of complaint or allegation made against the petitioner has not been explained in the impugned order. The petitioner further states that the Parent-Teacher Association submitted a written complaint against one Rajendran and Sujatha stating that they are misbehaving in the school campus and an enquiry was conducted by the erstwhile Block Educational Officer. The petitioner found that the complaint is true and preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the Block Educational Officer, however, no action was initiated against the said teachers.

4. The petitioner further states that when he acted based on the complaint of the Parent-Teacher Association, he has been penalized by way of the impugned transfer order. According to the petitioner, the sixth respondent, who is working as Middle School Headmaster in Panchayat Union Middle School, Panangulam North, Thiruvarankulam Block, Pudukkottai District, has involved in several irregularities, including sexual harassment. In order to accommodate the sixth respondent in the place of the petitioner as there was a protest against the sixth respondent by the village people, the petitioner has been unnecessarily transferred.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made several allegations against the Authorities / respondents. The petitioner states that there is an allegation of sexual harassment against the sixth respondent and in order to accommodate the sixth respondent in his place, the impugned transfer order has been passed. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that transfer and postings through counselling are made only based on corrupt activities. For the transfer and postings to a particular place or post, the teachers are paying rupees ten lakhs and above as bribe. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a serious allegation against the Authorities regarding rampant corrupt activities in the matter of transfer and postings. It is contended that in the case of the petitioner also, due to the corrupt activities, the petitioner is victimized.

6. In view of the fact that similar allegation of rampant corrupt activities in the matter of transfer and postings are made by several other learned counsels appearing in other cases, this Court suo motu impleaded the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and directed the learned Additional Advocate General, who took notice for the newly impleaded party, to get instructions with reference to such allegations as it is shocking the conscious of the Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent contended that the allegation against the sixth respondent is false and frivolous. The sixth respondent is ready and willing to work wherever he is posted and he ha