Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
R. Sivaraj - Appellant
Versus
The Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Salem District & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 17564 of 2022 & W.M.P.Nos. 16835, 16836, 16838 & 18500 of 2022
Decided On : 11-08-2022
Transfer - Sanitary Worker - G.O.Ms.No.10, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 07.01.1994, Letter dated 09.08.1994, Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and others [(2009) 8 SCC 337], State of U.P and others vs. Siya Ram and others [(2004) 7 SCC 405], Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others [CDJ 2008 SC 2162] - The court discussed the impugned transfer orders in light of administrative grounds, principles of natural justice, and the scope of judicial review in transferring government employees. It referenced G.O.Ms.No.10, clarified instructions on transfers based on complaints/allegations, and highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in transfer matters. The court emphasized the need for detailed investigation and disciplinary proceedings on substantiated allegations and concluded that the impugned transfer orders were punitive in nature and violated the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sanitary Worker, filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the transfer orders issued by the respondents and to restore the petitioner to the post of Sanitary Worker in Edappadi Municipality. The respondents claimed the transfer was based on a complaint and for better administration of the Department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned transfer orders were punitive in nature, violated the principles of natural justice, and did not follow the clarified instructions on transfers based on complaints/allegations. It concluded that there was no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the transfer orders, compliance with administrative grounds, and adherence to principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned transfer orders were found to be punitive, in violation of the principles of natural justice, and not in compliance with the clarified instructions on transfers based on complaints/allegations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1962/2022/A4 dated 27.05.2022 and consequential order issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.0569/2022/C1 dated 03.06.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to the post of Sanitary Worker in Edappadi Municipality.)
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1962/2022/A4 dated 27.05.2022 and consequential order issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.0569/2022/C1 dated 03.06.2022 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to the post of Sanitary Worker in Edappadi Municipality.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Worker temporarily in the 2nd respondent office vide order in Na.Ka.No.2539/97C1, dated 04.06.1998. Subsequently, his service was regularised. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent without issuing/serving the transfer order to the petitioner, he was issued relieving order in Na.Ka.No.0569/2022/C1, dated 03.06.2022 by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, he was transferred to Attur Municipality. The petitioner made a request to cancel his transfer order. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has served the transfer order passed by the 1st respondent dated 27.05.2022 to the petitioner only on 04.07.2022. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court for the aforesaid prayer.
3. According to the respondents, based on the complaint received by the 2nd respondent, a memo was served to the petitioner by the Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.0475/2022/C1, dated 12.04.2022 seeking explanation for the same. Thereafter, the impugned transfer order has been passed and subsequently, on the request of the petitioner, he was transferred to Mettur Municipality by the 1st respondent by his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1962/2022/A4, dated 13.06.2022 and a copy of the said order has been enclosed in the additional typed~set of papers filed by the 1st respondent.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st and 3rd respondents undertakes that the 1st respondent would serve the said revised transfer order dated 13.06.2022 to the petitioner by registered post, without any delay.
5. It is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court made in W.P.(MD) Nos.10759 of 2021 & etc., batch, dated 28.10.2021, [Narasingaraja vs 1.The Director General of Police / Inspector General of Prisons, Department of Prison, Chennai~600 008] wherein Madurai Bench (myself) of this Court has held as follows:
18. In the instant case, it is seen that the impugned transfer orders are stated to have been passed on administrative grounds. The Government, by G.O.Ms.No.10, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 07.01.1994, has issued revised instructions in the matter of transfer of Government servants from one station /post to another once in three years. Subsequently, the Government, vide Letter dated 09.08.1994, clarified G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 07.01.1994, clarifying that when transfers on complaints / allegations are made after preliminary enquiry, it should be followed up by a detailed investigation and disciplinary action instituted on allegations finally found to be substantiated. The relevant portion of the said letter is extracted hereunder:
(III). In the said G.O. In sub~clause (f) of para III (vii), the following shall be added at the end: Transfers shall not be effected on the basis of allegations, unless the allegations are prima facie found to be true by a preliminary enquiry and it is decided by the transferring authority that the continuance of the officer in the same station is injurious to
The court emphasized the need for detailed investigation and disciplinary proceedings on substantiated allegations in transfer matters, highlighting the limited scope of judicial review and the impor....
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 ....
Transfers based on objections should be followed by detailed investigation and disciplinary proceedings if the allegations are substantiated, and failure to adhere to these principles can render the ....
Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting such transfer.
Judicial review of employee transfers is limited; transfers are administrative unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
A transfer cannot be made on the basis of irrelevant grounds and must not suffer from inordinate delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
