O R D E R

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of transfer dated

01.08.2017, transferring the petitioner as a Child Development Project Officer from Puzhal Block, Thiruvallur District to Melbhuvanagiri Block, Cuddalore District.

2. The reason stated for such transfer is on administrative grounds. The petitioner filed the present writ petition and challenged the said order of transfer by contending that the transfer is punitive in nature, since the petitioner had already been subjected to initiation of disciplinary proceeding. It is further contended by the petitioner that the impugned transfer was made also to accommodate the fourth respondent in the place, in which, the petitioner was originally functioning.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents wherein, it is stated that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules against the petitioner by the Director-cum-Mission, Director of ICDS, Taramani, Chennai for the charges that she had chosen to act beyond the powers by calling upon the subordinates to affirm and to swear on god and children that they have not committed either theft or any illegality in implementation of the scheme based on the representation of the Anganwadi Workers Association dated 23.12.2016. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that based on the letter of the Director of Social Welfare, Chennai dated 05.07.2017, a transfer order was made wherein, four persons including the petitioner were transferred. The transfer order of the petitioner was made on the ground of administrative reasons and the rest of the persons are on willingness. It is further stated that the petitioner was transferred not only on the ground of administrative reasons but also for several allegations and irregularities committed by her.

4. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the very counter filed by the respondents supports the claim of the petitioner that the impugned transfer is a punitive one and thus, cannot be sustained for violating the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further contended that it is well settled that punitive transfer cannot be made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the person, who is sought to be transferred, as a punitive measure. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court made in P.Karunakaran V. The Union of India and Others reported in [2014] LAB.I.C.146.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the very order impugned in this writ petition would show that the transfer of the petitioner was made only on the administrative reasons and therefore, she cannot claim otherwise. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader is not disputing the fact that the petitioner's transfer was made not only on the administrative reasons, but also based on several allegations and irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

7. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of transfer.

Though the impugned order says that the transfer was made on administrative grounds, the petitioner specifically claimed that such transfer was made as a punitive measure, since disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The above said claim made by the petitioner is supported by the very counter filed by the respondents wherein, it is admitted that the impugned transfer was made not only on the ground of administrative reasons, but also for several allegations and irregularities committed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is apparent that the impugned order was made as a punitive measure and not on the administrative reasons in toto as referred to in the impugned order. If it is on administrative reasons, certainly, this Court may not interfere with such transfer, but