ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Transfer Order vide Proceedings No.P2/812(01)/2020-RM(G), dated 27.11.2020 against the petitioners based on the false complaint and false enquiry report without any proper reason is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the settled Principles of Law and also violated the APSRTC Service Rules and Regulations and also offends Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to set aside the Transfer order No.P2/812(01)/2020-RM(G), dated 27.11.2020.”

The petitioners are working as drivers in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Guntur-I Depot, Guntur. Basing on a complaint dated 19.05.2020, an enquiry was conducted on 18.11.2020 and the same was submitted to the second respondent/ Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Region. Without serving any copy of enquiry report by the second respondent, the third respondent issued transfer order against these petitioners in Proceedings No.P2/812(01)/2020-RM(G) dated 27.11.2020 as a measure of punishment. But, the contention of the petitioners is that, such punishment is not prescribed under the rules governing the service conditions of employees vide Circular No.PD.01/2019 dated 01.01.2019 and imposition of such punishment of transfer to these petitioners is illegal and requested to set-aside the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit, whereas, Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, vehemently opposed the relief claimed in the writ petition, contending that the Circular No.PD.01/2019 dated 01.01.2019 is a subject matter of challenge in another writ petition and therefore, there is no illegality in the order and requested to pass appropriate order.

As on date, the departmental proceedings are taken in terms of Circular No.PD.01/2019 dated 01.01.2019, where certain regulations are prescribed to take appropriate action against the employees who are guilty of misconduct. But, no punishment of transfer is prescribed from one Bus Depot to another Bus Depot under the regulations.

Finally, it is contended that the transfer is incidence of service, but it shall never be punitive in nature. If it is a punitive punishment, an enquiry is required to be conducted under A.P.S.R.T.C (Conduct) Regulations and A.P.S.R.T.C (CC&A) Regulations governing the service conditions of A.P.S.R.T.C employees, if the Corporation intended to impose a major penalty, it is mandatory to conduct an enquiry strictly adhering to the Regulations. But no such inquiry was conducted for transfer of the petitioner as punitive measure from one Depot to another Depot, more particularly when the petitioner is holding a local cadre post. In addition to that, the transfer from one place to another place is not a punishment prescribed under A.P.S.R.T.C (Conduct) Regulations and A.P.S.R.T.C (CC&A) Regulations issued by the Corporation. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioners from one depot to another depot is illegal and arbitrary, requested to set aside the same.

The only reason assigned by the Courts for transfer of these petitioners is misconduct. But, no enquiry was conducted. However, the petitioners were transferred as a measure of punishment. The very allegation in the transfer order is sufficient to draw inference that the transfer order is punitive in nature and motivated. Therefore, such punitive transfers or motivated transfers cannot be upheld by this Court, since such transfers will have serious effect on the career and family life of these petitioners.

When similar issue i.e. transfer of employee on administrative ground, came up before the Division Bench of this Court in “General Manager, South Central Railway v. Syed Abdul Kareem1”, it is observed that, transfer is an incident of service and pe