Madras High Court
A.Paulraj Pandian vs The Director General Of Police on 10 February, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2020
and W.M.P.(MD) No.11439 of 2020
(Through Video Conference)
A.Paulraj Pandian ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thallakulam(L& O) Range,
Madurai City, Madurai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
D1 Thallakulam (L&O) Police Station,
Madurai City, Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned office order passed by the respondents 1 to 4 in
C.No.566/37869/A3/2020 and CPO.No.1379/2020 order dated
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2020
24.09.2020 relieving the petitioner from 3rd respondent office and
transferring him to the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur District, and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For Mr.K.Gokul
For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi,
Special Government Pleader
******
ORDER
The order of transfer, dated 24.09.2020 is put under challenge. It is
the settled proposition that the transfer order cannot be interfered by the
High Courts in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India except in cases of malafides or when the order is
punitive in nature, etc.
2. By relying upon various incidents that had occurred in the
petitioner's service, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged this Court
that the order itself was punitive in nature. When the transfer order is
passed stating that the transfer is made on administrative grounds, a mere
reference to some incidents relating to the service of the employees,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2020
which can be construed as misconduct on the part of the employees
themselves or of the co-employees, may not be sufficient to term the
consequential order of transfer as being punitive in nature.
3. When the concerned Authority is of the view that instead of
initiating action for the misconduct or to avoid any further
unpleasantness or to maintain a serene administration in the employment
place, the decision to transfer the employee can be said to be an action
taken on administrative exigencies. However, in case where the order of
transfer itself reflects the delinquency and consequently the employee is
transferred owing to such delinquency, such an order could be termed as
punitive in nature and interference to such orders would be justifiable,
since being punitive in nature.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Public Services
Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of Uttar Pradhesh and another
reported in (2003) 4 SCC 104 has reiterated this proposition and has held
that a transfer order should not be normally interfered, except in the
rarest of rare cases. Likewise, in the case of State of Uttar Pradhesh vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2020
Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 and in National
Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., vs. Shri Bhagwan and one
another reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574, it was held that the only
exception in which the High Courts can interfere is on the ground of
malafides or in violation of statutory powers.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari vs.Union of India and
others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592. The decision is against the
petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari's case (cited
supra) has held that it is one thing to say that the Employer is entitled to
pass the order of transfer on administrative exigencies, but it is another
thing to say that the order of transfer is passed, by way of or in lieu of
punishment. The judgment made in Somesh Tiwari's case (cited supra)
was to the effect that when the order of transfer is passed by lieu of
punishment, the same is liable to be set aside and is also wholly illegal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2020
6. In the counter affidavit filed, the respondents have categorically
come up with a case against that the petitioner, justifying the
administrative transfer, in the following manner:
“4. With regard to paragraphs-3 & 4 of the affidavit, it
is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has stated that he
is serving in Armed Reserve from 22.05.2020 and made
request on 22.06.2020 for home quarantine to concerned
officers, but the request was rejected on 06.08.2020. On
06.08.2020 though the petitioner was transferred to Special
Juvenile Aid Police Unit, Madurai City, he intentionally
quarreled with his seniors and not relieved from Armed
Reserve. The petitioner has used the word "Home quarantine"
as tool in order to evade from the duty. The petitioner has
acknowledged the transfer order on 24.09.2020 and again he
went on home quarantine from 26.09.2020 to 29.09.2020 and
reported for duty on 30.09.2020. The petitioner did not submit
any medical documents.
5. With regard to paragraphs-6 & 7 of the affidavit, it is
respectfully submitted that due to misconduct of the petitioner,
he was directed to report at Armed Reserve on 22.05.2020. As
the petitioner does not mend his behaviour, he was transferred
to Special Juvenile Aid Police Unit. On 01.09.2020, while the
petitioner was attending check post duty at Chinthamani at
0750 hours, the petitioner contacted the Control Room through
VHF and questioned the officers in a disorderly manner. His
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2020
repeated misconduct in a disciplined force despite he was
shown mercy many times he failed to mend his behaviour.
Thus, the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds
and there is no vengeance or malafide intension.”
7. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner had been indulging in various
misconducts which, according to the respondents were unbecoming of a
Police Head Constable. Since they were of the view that they have been
given several opportunities to mend his character, he has not done so and
it is in this background that he was transferred on administrative
grounds. As such, the transfer order which was made on administrative
grounds cannot be treated as punitive in nature.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD)
No.11439 of 2020 stands closed.
10.02.2021
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
sts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2020
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.
To:
1. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thallakulam(L& O) Range,
Madurai City, Madurai.
4. The Inspector of Police,
D1 Thallakulam (L&O) Police Station,
Madurai City, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2020
M.S.RAMESH, J.
sts
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2020
Dated:
10.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
