THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.837 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri A.Naren Rudra, learned counsel for the respondent, as well.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.14202 of 2024, whereby the learned writ court has allowed the said writ petition filed by the respondent herein.

3. The respondent, Professor and Head of the Department of CT Surgery, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, has been transferred to Government Medical College, Wanaparthy, as Professor of CT Surgery in the existing vacancy on administrative grounds by the order dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P.1). Being aggrieved, he approached the writ court in the impugned writ petition. The learned writ court, after hearing the case of the parties and based on the pleadings on record, after reference to certain decisions of the Apex Court was of the considered view that the transfer order suffers from serious infirmities and warrants interference of the court. It was accordingly set aside. The relieving order dated 25.05.2024 was also set aside. The learned writ court, however, proceeded to observe that “keeping in view the sensitivity and seriousness of the issue, this order shall not preclude the authorities from taking appropriate action against the petitioner, if warranted, strictly in accordance with law”. The respondent had raised the grievance that the transfer order was only on account of an enquiry into the complaint lodged by a Post Graduate student for harassment in workplace. The complaint is dated 08.05.2024 and a preliminary enquiry has been conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee as per the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 2013”). In this background when the enquiry has not yet reached finality, the respondent was transferred and posted at Government Medical College, Wanaparthy, on an equivalent post of Professor of CT Surgery on administrative grounds. The learned writ court, being persuaded by the background facts, was of the opinion that the transfer order is punitive in nature.

Therefore, it was set aside.

4. Section 12 under Chapter V of the Act of 2013 provides for action during pendency of enquiry on a request made by the aggrieved woman, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be. On recommendation to the employer, either the aggrieved woman or the respondent can be transferred to any other place. The aggrieved woman can also be granted leave for a period of three months. The employer has the discretion to grant such other relief to the aggrieved woman as may be prescribed. However, the transfer order on the face of it does not reflect that it is on the request of the aggrieved woman or on the recommendation of the Internal Committee. The employer has, in its discretion on administrative grounds, transferred the respondent to another Government Medical College on an equivalent post. It appears that taking note of the background enquiry, the learned writ court was persuaded to hold that the transfer order is punitive in nature.

5. As we have observed above, the transfer order, on the face of it, does not appear to be punitive in nature. There is no stigma or reflection of any action based upon the complaint of the victim apparent on a reading of the transfer order. It is within the domain of the employer to transfer an employee on administrative grounds. The provisions of the Act of 2013 also contemplate a situation where during the pendency of the complaint, the aggrieved victim or the respondent can be transferred to any other workplace. If the transfer has been made on purely admi