Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
V. Sundarrajan - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 17143 of 2021, W.M.P.No.18164 & 19157 of 2021 & 505 & 8136 of 2022
Decided On : 12-07-2022
Transfer - Administrative Grounds - G.O.Ms.No.249, Finance (Budget General – I) department, dated 21.5.2020, G.O.Ms.No.10 issued by Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 7.1.1994 - The impugned transfer order was passed on administrative grounds due to pending disciplinary proceedings, vigilance enquiry, and criminal case against the petitioner. The court held that unless the transfer order is shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts cannot interfere with such orders. The impugned transfer order was not punitive in nature and was upheld by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Assistant initially appointed in 1994, was transferred from Villupuram district to Chengalput district on administrative grounds. The petitioner alleged malafide intent behind the transfer, citing absence of administrative grounds, violation of transfer policy, and hardship caused due to family circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was based on pending disciplinary proceedings, vigilance enquiry, and a criminal case against the petitioner, enabling a free and fair probe by the Investigating authority. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned transfer order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned transfer order was an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless the transfer order is shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts cannot interfere with such orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned transfer order was upheld by the court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order of transfer issued by the 2nd respondent in Proc. No. Ser 7(1)/ 7478/2021 dated 06.08.2021 and to quash the same.)
According to the petitioner, the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1994. The petitioner while working as Special Tahsildar, the impugned transfer order has been passed by the second respondent vide proceedings No. Ser 7(1)/ 7478/2021 dated 06.08.2021 transferring the petitioner from Villupuram district to Chengalput district on administrative grounds.
2. According to the petitioner, the impugned transfer order has been passed with malicious intent to accommodate the vested interests to penalize the petitioner for having approached this Court by filing writ petition and Crl.O.P. and the matter is subjudice. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not served a single memo and the impugned transfer order has been passed without any specific ground. The impugned transfer order has been issued within a period of one and half years from the date of earlier order of transfer posting to the present station which is violation of transfer policy of the Government. The petitioner is General Secretary of Tamil Nadu State Revenue Officials Association since 2013, based on the complaint from one C.Palaniappan alleging that the petitioner had issued certain notice and letters against the Collector and lodged complaint against the petitioner. The second respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to issue an order of transfer without TTA on administrative ground. The petitioner's daughter is studying in XI Standard and his son is studying in IV Standard and his Wife is working as Teacher in Government aided Primary School at Villupuram. The impugned transfer order will lead to grave hardship to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.12252 of 2020 in the case of Dr.A.Jayachitra Vs. Principal Secretary, Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu wherein it has clearly held that in the absence of any administrative ground or exigencies, ultimately subject to the test of judicial review. According to the petitioner, It is further stated that the impugned order clearly suffers from the vice of malice in law and it is also settled law that no punitive order of transfer which is stigmatic in nature shall be subjected to the scrutiny of law. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner has already filed W.P.No.4808 of 2021 seeking Mandamus, directing the respondents that the petitioner shall not be subjected to punitive order of transfer outside the district without affording an opportunity of being heard. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that there are several allegations and complaints pending against the writ petitioner in Villupuram district and he is facing enquiries in all of them. In sofar as the allegation made by the petitioner that certain serious lapses on the part of the respondents, it is stated that a detailed enquiry is being taken up by the appropriate investigating authority. It is the duty of the second respondent to facilitate the appropriate Investigating authority in conducing enquiry in a free manner on the serious allegations levelled against the writ petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed. Further, it is stated that as per Rule 10 of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, postings and transfers of Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars from one district to another shall be made by erstwhile the Board of Revenue (now the Commissioner of Revenue Administration). Therefore, the second respondent is empowered to issue the order of transfer. The judgment dated 30.7.2021 made in W.P.Nos.47
Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting such transfer.
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 ....
The transfer was not punitive, and the transfer policy did not confer a legally enforceable right.
Point of law: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer was not punitive, and the disciplinary proceedings should continue without being influenced by the Tribunal's directions.
The court considered the principles of Karma and the reformative theory of punishment in balancing disciplinary action with the well-being of the petitioner, a police officer.
The court emphasized that transfer orders should not be interfered with unless they are shown to be vitiated by malafide or made in violation of any statutory provision or issued by an incompetent pe....
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
