A deputation order issued by a competent authority on administrative grounds, involving multiple employees and a minimal change in location after a long tenure at one station, is not considered punitive even if disciplinary proceedings are pending.

PRAYER:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of transfer passed by the above 1st respondent in Se.Mu.Aa. No.Va6/49/2025-2 dated 10.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the above 1st respondent to restore the petitioner's service before the 3rd respondent office and pass such further or other orders as this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed

For R1 & R2 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar

Special Government Pleader

For R3 & R4 : Mr.Amjad Khan

Government Advocate

O R D E R

The petitioner, who is working as a Jeep driver attached with the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Udangudi/the third respondent herein has filed this writ petition, challenging the order of transfer, dated 10.01.2026 on the ground that he has been transferred by way of punishment.

The case of the petitioner is that for having made certain allegations as against the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Udangudi, Thoothukudi District/the second respondent herein, the second respondent has issued a show cause notice as against this petitioner on 24.12.2025, under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The petitioner has submitted his explanation and also submitted a representation before the District Collector, Thoothukudi on 26.12.2025. The District Collector has not acted upon the representation of this petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner has been transferred from Udangudi Panchayat Union to Srivaikundam Panchayat Union, by the order impugned in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, since the impugned order of transfer is in punitive in nature, it needs to be interfered with.

Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2. Mr.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 3 & 4 and submit that the order impugned in this writ petition is not a transfer order and it is only an order of deputation. They further submit that the petitioner is working as Jeep driver in Udangudi Panchayat Union for the past 26 years and on administrative grounds, he has been deputed to Srivaikundam Panchayat Union, which is 14 kms away from the existing place. The respondents have also admitted that show cause notice has been issued as against this petitioner that he had refused to take the vehicle on a particular day. The petitioner has also went on medical leave from 13.01.2026 to 01.02.2026 and on expiry of the leave, he was expected to report duty on 02.02.2026, however, he has not reported to duty on 02.02.2026 and once again applied for leave on medical ground. Therefore, he was referred to Medical Board. Since this petitioner has not attended the duty, the movement of the second and third respondents are affected. Therefore, the District Collector has passed this order of deputation. Moreover, one Bathalam, who is working as a driver in the Superintendent office, Thoothukudi has also assumed office at Udangudi Panchayat Union on 12.01.2026.

According to the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate, it is not only this petitioner has been deputed, but also four others have been deputed to various Panchayat Unions, on administrative grounds. The order has been passed by the District Collector, Tuticorin and it is not either by the Commissioner /the second respondent or the Block Development Officer/the third respondent. In fact, the Block Development Officer has communicated the order of deputation passed by the District Collector to the petitioner, for the convenience of the administration and therefore it cannot be construed that an order of deputation has been passed by the Commissioner/the second respondent. They further submits that no malice has been attributed as against the second respondent.

This Court considered the rival submiss