A R Rajeswari vs The State Of Ap
2022 Latest Caselaw 6916 AP

       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

             WRIT PETITION No.20179 of 2022
ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in transferring the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.B2/52/2022-3 dated 30.06.2022 from Government SW Girls Hostel No.2 Ananthapuramu to Government SW College Girls Hostel, Uravakonda as Hostel Welfare Officer, as illegal, arbitrary violative of Principles of Natural Justice without any reasons in violation of the guidelines of transfer and posting issued vide G.O.Ms.No.116 Finance (HR.I-PLG & POLICY) Department, dated 07.06.2022, G.O.Ms.No.122 Finance (HR.I PLG and POLICY) Department, dated 16.06.2022 and circular memo dated 15.06.2022 and 27.09.2014 and set aside the transfer orders issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.B2 /52/2022-3, dated 30.06.2022 with a consequential direction to continue the petitioner as Hostel Welfare Officer at Government SW Girls Hostel No.2, Ananthapuramu and pass such other order or orders......."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is

working as Hostel Welfare Officer, Government SW Girls

Hostel No.2, Annathapuramu District. She was appointed

as Matron vide proceedings inRc.No.S6/456/84, dated

17.02.1986 in Social Welfare Department and posted to

Government SC Girls Hostel, Puttaparthy. She has passed

requisite departmental tests and has been promoted as

Hostel Welfare Officer (Grade-I) from the date of

appointment performing her duties without any remarks

and to the satisfaction of the department. While working so,

the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings vide

Rc.No.B2/52/2022-3, dated 30.06.2022 transferred the

petitioner and posted to SW Girls Hostel, Uravakonda.

Thereafter the petitioner made representation to the 2nd

respondent on 4.7.2022 requested to retain her at

Ananthapuramu. But no action has been taken by the

respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent

denying all the allegations made in the petition and

contended that the Committee which was constituted

according to G.O.Ms.No.122 Finance (Hr.I-Plg. & Policy)

Department, dated 16.06.2022 has met on 29.06.2022 in

order to transfer the eligible Hostel Welfare Officers by

obeying the orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.116 Finance (Hr.I

Plg. & Policy) Department, dated 7.6.2022 and

G.O.Ms.No.117 Finance (HR.I-Plg & Policy) Department,

dated 07.06.2022. In the said meeting, it was decided that

the petitioner should be transferred from SW Girls Hostel

No.2, Ananthapuramu to SW College Girls Hostel,

Uravakonda duly recording its findings in the minutes of the

meeting on administrative grounds. It is stated that the

petitioner has failed to obey the orders issued by the 2 nd

respondent vide proceedings dated 30.06.2022 and she did

not join duty on the AN of 01.07.2022 whereas all other 43

HWOs have already joined without any delay. Further the

petitioner has approached the District Collector for retention

to SWGH No.2, Annathapuram on 4.7.2022. Since the

petitioner failed to report for duties as HWO, SWCGH,

Uravakonda before the Assistant Social Welfare Officer,

Uravakonda a show cause notice was also issued stating

that as to why the disciplinary action should not be initiated

vide Rc.No.B2/52/2022, dated 7.7.2022. After lapse of 10

days from the issuance of show cause notice the petitioner

took over the charge of the HWO, SWCGH, Uravakonda

hostel on 18.7.2022 which shows the petitioner's

disobedience towards the higher authorities. Further the

petitioner representation has been considered and speaking

orders were passed. It is further stated that one Smt

K.Anitha, while she was working as Hostel Welfare Officer,

Dharmavaram, has opted some places and among them SW

Girls Hostel No.2, Annathapuram was considered.

Accordingly the said K. Anitha has been transferred and

posted to SW Girls Hostel No.2, Annathapuram vide

proceedings dated 30.06.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent

and the said K.Anitha was not made a party to the present

writ petition.

4. Heard Mr. Sateesh Kumar Eerla, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader

for Social Welfare, Ms. Y.N. Lalitha, learned Standing

Counsel for ZPP and learned Government Pleader for Village

& Ward Secretariats appearing for the respondents.

5. learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner was elected as Joint Secretary of the A.P.

Government Employees Association, Ananthapuramu for the

first time in the month of May 2022 and the results were

declared vide proceedings NoAPGEA/ATP city Unit

Ele./18/2022 dated 08.05.2022 and her name is shown at

S.No.6. As per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.116,

dated 07.06.2022 at para-8, it has specified that the office

bearers of recognized employee's association shall not be

transferred and should adopt the circular Memo No.245/

SW/A1/2014-1, G.A. (SW) Department, dated 16.09.2014

and Circular Memo No.17225/SW/A1/2014-1, GA (SW)

Department, dated 27.09.2014. He further stated that as

per the above two Memos issued by the Government, the

office bearers of the recognized service association after

recording reasons shall not be transferred until completion

of 3 terms or 9 years of stay in a particular station and the

same is again reiterated in G.O.Ms.No.122, dated

16.06.2022 at para-4(c) and in Circular Memo dated

15.06.2022 at para-6. He further argued that the present

impugned order of transfer is in total violation of these G.Os

as 3 terms is not completed as an office bearer to the

petitioner as she was elected as Joint Secretary for the 1 st

term in May 2022. He also argued that the District

President of the A.P. Govt. Employees Association has

requested to exempt the petitioner from transfer since she is

elected as office bearer and 3 terms is not completed and

her transfer would be violative of the transfer guidelines

issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 7.6.2022.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader

argued that while the petitioner was working as Hostel

Welfare Officer, Govt. Social Welfare Girls Hostel No.2,

Ananthapuram, the Government has issued orders

regarding lifting ban on transfers vide G.O.Ms.No.116

Finance (Hr.I-Plg & Policy) Department, dated 7.6.2022 and

in accordance with the same, the petitioner has been

transferred to Uravakonda on administrative grounds. He

further argued that as per the said G.O.Ms.No.116, it is

specified at para No.4 (ii), as "Employee who completed 5

years at a station shall be invariably transferred" and in

partial modification of these orders vide G.O.Ms.No.117

Finance (HR.I-PLG & Policy) Department, dated 07.06.2022.

He further submits that the District administration well

aware about the skills related to duty performance, ability

and capacity of personnel of the department and discerns

that which position or place would be better for an employee

to get more fruitful results. Hence the plea of the petitioner

i.e., to retain in the same station cannot be considered on

administrative reasons which are specified clearly in the

minutes related to the transfers and posted the petitioner to

SVV college Girls Hostel, Uravakonda.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Ram

Chander Versus The State of Chattisgarh and another1,

wherein it was held that "the requirement to give reasons is

satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant

reasons. Mechanical reasons are not considered adequate".

And in para-23, it was held that :

"Halsbury's Laws of India (Administrative Law) notes that the requirement to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant reasons. Mechanical reasons are not considered adequate. The following extract is useful for consideration:

Adequacy of reasons : Sufficiency of reasons, in a particular case, depends on the facts of each case. It is not necessary for the authority to write out a judgment as a court of law does. However, at least, an outline of process of reasoning must be given. It may satisfy the requirement of giving reasons if relevant reasons have been given for the order, though the authority has not set out all the reasons or some of the reasons which had been argued before the court have not been expressly considered by the authority. A mere repetition of the statutory language in the order will not make the order a reasoned one.

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Mechanical and stereotype reasons are not regarded as adequate. A speaking order is one that speaks of the mind of the adjudicatory body which passed the order. A reason such as the entire examination of the year 1982 is cancelled' cannot be regarded as adequate because the statement does explain as to why the examination has been cancelled; it only lays down the punishment without stating the causes therefor."

8. In another case reported in SN Mukherjee Vs

Union of India2, wherein it was held that "administrative

authorities should also give reasons in their orders failing

which it is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of

natural justice and mechanical reasons are not considered

adequate."

9. On perusing the entire material available on

record, this Court observed that the similarly placed

employees i.e., Smt. Sridevi and Sri Madhusudhana Reddy

working as HWOs in Ananthapuram District were also

retained and it was also found by scrutinizing of records by

directing the respondent No.3 who have completed 9 years

of service as HWO in Puttaparthi are not transferred and

retained in their same places. This court further observed

AIR 1990 SC page 1984

that the petitioner will be retiring on 31.01.2024 as her date

of birth is 07.01.1962, thereafter, the transfer is affected at

the verge of her retirement which is one and half year from

now.

10. It is pertinent to mention here that, as per

G.O.Ms.No.116, transfer shall be made to the welfare of the

employees and to promote work life balance to enable the

employees and lead happy and contended live and also

Government ensure to post every employee where he/she is

most productive and contributes for improved governance

and public service.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case and upon perusing the entire material available on

record, since the petitioner is going to be retired on

31.01.2024, this Court taking into consideration her health

conditions as she is suffering from High BP, Arthritis and

Diabetes and unable to travel the distance of transfer, in the

interest of justice, deems fit to allow the writ petition by

declaring the impugned transfer proceedings dated

30.06.2022, as illegal.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting

aside the impugned transfer proceedings issued by the 2 nd

respondent vide Rc.No.B2/52/2022-3, dated 30.06.2022.

Further, the respondents are directed to continue the

petitioner as Hostel Welfare Officer at Government SW Girls

Hostel No.2, Ananthapuramu. There shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date :      -09-2022
Gvl





      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO




         WRIT PETITION No.20179 of 2022




               Date :        .09.2022




Gvl