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 interference, provided it is aimed at ensuring administrative efficiency and public interest.

COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed challenging the transfer of the appellants/writ petitioners from Special Branch, Peraiyur and T.Kallipatti respectively to Tirunelveli City Police Commissionerate, on the ground that transfer has been effected on administrative grounds, these writ appeals have been filed.

2. The main ground of challenge made before the Writ Court was that the transfer is the result of punitive action since writ petitioners were directed to be posted in non sensitive posts. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that it is not a mere transfer, whereas it is in the nature of punishment. It is further submitted that when the appellants were working in Special Branch, Peraiyur, it was brought to the notice of the higher officials about the act of an Inspector of Police in closing the accident in the quarry as a motor accident case. Based on the complaint, the Inspector was also shifted to another place. Immediately after two months, the appellants have been transferred. Hence, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the transfer of the appellants is nothing but punitive in nature.

3. Learned Counsel for the Government would submit that action initiated against the Inspector of Police by the higher officials is noway connected with the transfer of the appellants herein, whereas the transfer of the appellants were made on administrative grounds at the instructions of the 1^st respondent on the specific inputs about their involvement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer of the appellants is punitive in nature.

4. We have perused the entire materials.

5. If the transfer is effected mala fide as a punishment, the Court will normally interfere with the same, whereas, if the transfer is made on the ground of administrative convenience and also to prevent any further misdeeds of the concerned employee in a particular place, it cannot be said that such transfer is also the result of mala fide action. We have also perused the sealed cover produced by the learned Government counsel, wherein, certain adverse remarks have been found against the appellants. Only in order to stop further recurrence, such transfer has been effected. It is to be noted that a Government servant or employee of the public sector undertaking has no vested right to claim to be posted forever at a particular place. The transfer from one place to other place is not only an incident of service, but also a condition of service that too if necessary in public interest and also for efficiency in the public administration. Therefore, it is for the employer to decide the nature of transfer of a particular employee. Even the conduct of such employee sometimes requires transfer for smooth functioning of the administration. Therefore, we are of the view that the common order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference.

6. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have already made representations to reconsider their transfer and therefore, seeks a direction to the authorities to consider the said representations and pass orders.

7. If any representation has been made by the appellants for re-transfer, the same shall be considered by the authorities on their own merits and as per the existing rules. The sealed cover is handed over to the learned Government counsel.

8. The Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellane