The transfer order based on allegations should be followed by a detailed investigation and disciplinary action, and the individual should be provided an opportunity to defend against the allegations before the transfer is ordered.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, Calling for records relating to the order of the 1st respondent made in Se. Mu. Order No. A.N.P. 1/60497/2022 dated 11.05.2022 and the consequential proceedings of 2nd respondent made in Se. Mu. Order No. A1/ 11308/ 2022 dated 12.05.2022 and that of 3rd respondents proceedings made in No. A2/ 4663/2022 dated 13.05.2022 to quash the same.)

According to the petitioner, the petitioner is working in the office of the third respondent as Assistant. Vide proceedings of the first respondent made in Se.Mu.Order No.A.N.P.1/60497/2022 dated 11.5.2022 transferring the petitioner from Tirvuarur to Coimbatore on administrative ground. It is further stated that on the premise of certain complaint from a female colleague the impugned transfer order has been passed. The petitioner had chosen to give representation terming it as complaint to higher authorities as to the maladministration and mismanagement by the higher authority in the said office resulting in false allegation and certain unwarranted issues against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court for the aforesaid prayer.

2. According to the petitioner, the impugned transfer is sought to be effected on administrative grounds, but various reasons more particularly allegations have been stated therein, hence, the said orders without any opportunity to putforth his defence amounts to punitive one. Further, it is stated that a complaint by a female colleague with regard to sexual harassment for which there is no preliminary enquiry in the presence of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is outcome of arbitrary exercise of power with malafide intention and therefore, the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by third respondent wherein it is stated that the State President, Tamilnadu Ministerial Staff Association made a representation on 5.5.2022 in which the President of the said Association requested to take action on the representation dated 29.4.2022 of the District President, Tamilnadu Ministerial Staff Association, Thiruvarur. In the representation, dated 29.4.2022 certain allegations were made against the petitioner that he was interfered with other colleagues- work with wrong and ulterior motive of making money with corrupt manner, he also insisted to depute the temporary female staff working in the subordinate offices to the third respondent office for typing work and sexually harassed them and threatening other employees especially dealt files relating to appointing employees on outsourcing and misbehaved with female staff of the third respondent office. Based on the allegations received from the Association, a woman officer Tmt.G.Valarmathi, Additional Director of Agriculture was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the grave allegations made against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it is very essential to transfer the petitioner from the present station to protect the women employees and maintain the dignity and decorum of the office. The transfer order is passed only after the competent authority found strong prima facie case against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no irregularity or malafide intention as alleged by the petitioner. The third respondent also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 and S.C. Sexena Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 SCC (L & S) 1890 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “it is duty to first report to where he is transferred and make representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigations needs to be curbed.” In State of M.P. Vs. S.S.Koura [A.I.R. 1995 SC 1056] the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that Courts and Tribuna