Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3242
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
Neelanarayanan - Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Director, Tamil Nadu School Education, Chennai and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.4403 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.3157 & 3158 of 2025
Decided On : 12-03-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Arun Prasad.
For the Respondents:Mr. T. Amjadkhan, Government Advocate.
Transfers in public service must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot be based on unverified complaints or external pressures.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Transfer of Government Employee - The transfer order dated 12.02.2025 was challenged on grounds of malafide and violation of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the transfer. The court found the transfer unjustified and issued without proper enquiry. (Paras 3, 10, 16)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The court emphasized that administrative actions must be just and fair, and transfers should not be made based on unverified complaints or to satisfy external pressures. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Superintendent, was transferred after raising concerns about salary fixations, leading to complaints against him by a teachers' association. The transfer was executed without proper enquiry or consideration of previous findings.
Findings of Court:
The transfer order was deemed unreasonable and illegal, lacking a fair process.
Issues: The main issues included whether the transfer was justified and if the principles of natural justice were violated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that transfers must be based on valid reasons and not on external pressures or unverified complaints, reaffirming the need for fair administrative practices.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; transfer order quashed.
ORDER :
(BATTU DEVANAND, J.)
This Writ Petition has been filed against the proceedings, dated 12.02.2025 issued by the 1st respondent transferring the petitioner from Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District, to Jolarpettai, Thirupathur District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had joined as Junior Assistant in the Chief Educational Office, Kanyakumari District in the year 1996. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant and thereafter, as Desk Superintendent. Now, he is working as Superintendent at 4th respondent office with effect from 01.12.2023. During his duties, he came to know that, for some of the teachers, there was wrong fixation of their salaries and as such, there was monetary loss to the Government. He communicated the same to the 3rd and 4th respondents. After enquiry, the 3rd respondent confirmed the same vide letter, dated 11.07.2024 and communicated the same to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved over his action, some of the teachers in the name of their association, namely 'Tamil Nadu Thodakkapalli Aasiriyar Kootani', to give trouble to the petitioner, made a complaint to the higher officials stating that he is not amenable to them. In that regard, the then Chief Educational Officer asked the 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The 4th respondent submitted his report, dated 11.07.2024 stating that the allegations are false and no women teachers had given complaint against the petitioner. The said report was forwarded to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter no further steps have been taken by the respondents.
3. Now, a new Chief Educational Officer had joined duty before four months. The said association, by using their influence, had given a complaint on the same set of allegations, which were earlier found to be baseless. The complaint was forwarded to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner, had transferred the petitioner from Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District to Jolarpettai, Thirupathur District by proceedings, dated 12.02.2025. On the same day, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of transfer, dated 12.02.2025, this writ petition is filed.
4. A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Though the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent is running into 9 pages with 16 paragraphs, there is no denial on the contentions made by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. No reply also furnished to the allegations made by the petitioner against the 1st respondent for issuing the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent is illegal, malafide and the same is liable to be set aside. He further contends that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order as a measure of punishment. Without conducting any enquiry or without taking into consideration of the earlier report submitted by the 4th respondent on 11.07.2024, the 1st respondent issued the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents basing on the averments in the counter affidavit submits that series of complaints about the conduct and lethargic attitude of the writ petitioner herein was received from the Tamil Nadu Elementary Teacher's Federation and in this regard, protest was conducted by the teachers, which caused unnecessary chaos in the administration and therefore, the 1st respondent was forced to issue the impugned order, transferring the petitioner on administrative ground. As such, it cannot be found fault as it was issued with an intention to have smooth administration.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
8. On careful perusal of the materials available on recor
