Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
K. Prabu Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai – Respondent
W.P.(MD) Nos.7547 & 7550 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.6184, 6185, 6193 & 6195 of 2026
Decided On : 30-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of administrative transfer dispute and judicial proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. competing claims regarding the punitive vs. administrative nature of transfer. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. employer maintains absolute discretion regarding administrative staff transfers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. transfer is a standard incident of service and not inherently punitive. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. no judicial interference in valid administrative transfer orders. (Para 17 , 18) |
COMMON ORDER :
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the common order transferring the petitioners in these two writ petitions from Special Branch, Peraiyur and T.Kallupatti respectively to Tirunelveli City Police Commissionerate.
2. The impugned order and the issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions are one and the same and as such, they are taken up for consideration together and being disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioners herein, who are working as Head Constables in the Special Branch at Peraiyur and T.Kallupatti since 24.03.2022 and 01.11.2021 respectively, were transferred and posted to Tirunelveli City Police Commissionerate on administrative grounds through proceedings bearing Rc.No.A-40/NGB.III(1)/16/2026, dated 25.02.2026, issued by the first respondent. Pursuant to the said proceedings dated 25.02.2026, issued by the first respondent, the second respondent herein issued a consequential proceedings bearing C.No.A2/11/12857623/2026, dated 12.03.2026, reliving the petitioners herein from the present place of working.
4. In the said proceedings dated 25.02.2026, while transferring the petitioners herein to Tirunelveli City Police Commissionerate, the first respondent requested the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelvely City, to post them in any non-sensitive special unit in Tirunelveli City. In the light of the specific request made to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, by the first respondent herein through proceedings dated 25.02.2026, the petitioners herein have come forward by filing the present writ petitions contending that the impugned transfer and posting order is not an order issued on administrative grounds, but the same is punitive in nature.
5. This Court, having taken note of the same, by an order dated 17.03.2026 passed an interim order directing maintenance of status quo as on the date, while calling upon the respondents to file their counter-affidavits and also directed production of records.
6. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavits trying to justify the impugned transfer order and also produced the records.
7. Heard Mr.K.Gurunathan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.V.Om Prakash, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned transfer order is punitive in nature as there was a specific direction to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, to post the petitioners in any non-sensitive special unit, while they are working in the Special Branch. As the same is punitive in nature, in all fairness, the respondents ought to have informed the petitioners herein about the reasons for such punitive action and also contended that the impugned transfer order is not a simple case of transfer, but it is in the nature of punishment as the said transfer would operate prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners herein and also marks a stigma on them not only at the present place of working, but also at the new place of posting. He also further contended that the impugned transfer order has to sustain or fail only basing on the reasons assigned therein and the respondents cannot supply reasons to sustain the impugned transfer order by assigning reasons in the counter-affidavits. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the following de
An administrative transfer of a government servant, even if based on adverse inputs regarding conduct, is an incident of service and does not constitute a punitive action warranting judicial interfer....
The transfer order based on allegations should be followed by a detailed investigation and disciplinary action, and the individual should be provided an opportunity to defend against the allegations ....
Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting such transfer.
Judicial review of employee transfers is limited; transfers are administrative unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Point of law: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, ....
Point of Law : Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer orde....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
