[BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order

30.10.2025 12.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

W.P.(MD) No.27211 of 2025

and

W.M.P.(MD) No.21134 of 2025

P.Parameswari … Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Chief Conservator of Forests (FAC),

Tiruchirappalli Circle, Tiruchirappalli – 23.

2.The District Forest Officer,

Thanjavur Division, Thanjavur.

3.The District Forest Officer,

Tiruchirappalli Division,

Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in S.O.No.G1/129/2025 dated 14.08.2025 and quash the

same and render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mohanraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in S.O.No.G1/129/2025 dated

14.08.2025 and quash the same.

2. Heard Mr.P.Mohanraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Mr.P.Mohanraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Record Clerk in the Tamil Nadu Forest Department on compassionate appointment. She was promoted as Junior Assistant in July 2024 and was posted in Thanjavur Division.

4. While that being so, the petitioner was issued with an order of transfer dated 14.08.2025, transferring the petitioner from Thanjavur Division to Tiruchirappalli Division citing administrative reasons, but, however, no relieving order had been issued to her. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though, the transfer order had been made on administrative reasons, it is punitive in nature as the petitioner had been issued with a charge memo on 02.09.2025 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 on the charges of alleged financial transactions and property acquisitions, which are wholly frivolous and unsubstantiated having no direct bearing on the efficiency or integrity of the petitioner. He would submit that the transfer cannot be issued on punitive reasons under the guise of administrative reasons when it is linked to pending allegations and disciplinary proceedings. He would further submit that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family which contains her two daughters and the transfer of the petitioner to a far away place would impose a significant financial burden on the petitioner's family. Hence, he seeks indulgence of the order of transfer impugned in this Writ Petition.

5. Countering his arguments, Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would contend that a complaint had been received from a resident of Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, alleging that the petitioner had obtained a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through her bank account and a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- through her daughter's bank account and a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- in cash totalling to an amount to Rs.60,00,000/- from the complainant and that the complainant had alleged that the petitioner had refused to return back the money when asked for. The complainant had alleged that the petitioner had purchased two housing plots and also gold and diamond jewellery worth about Rs.

20,00,051/- and also two cars.

6. A letter addressed by the petitioner's brother had affirmed that the petitioner had lent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to her brother on interest and he had also received a further sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from her. The complainant had also registered a criminal case against the petitioner under the Provisions of BNS Act 2023 and she had been arrested and later released on bail. During the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner had also accepted to have purchased jewellery, cars and properties without prior permission