Madras High Court
K.Chandrasekaran vs The Joint Director (Personnel ... on 7 February, 2022
W.P.No.24634 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.02.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No. 24634 of 2021
and WMP.Nos. 25907 & 25909 of 2021
K.Chandrasekaran ..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Joint Director (Personnel Division)
Office of the Joint Director of School Education,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600006.
2.The District Education Officer,
Chidambaram. ..Respondents.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the proceedings of
the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No. 3071 / A4 / E3 / 2021 dated
12.11.2021 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd
respondent in Na.Ka.No. 7609 / A1 / 2021 dated 12.11.2021 and
quash the same
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Baskar
For Respondents : Mr.V. Nanmaran, AGP
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24634 of 2021
ORDER
Challenging the impugned transfer orders passed by the 1st & 2nd
respondents, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner while working as Assistant in the Office of the 2nd
respondent, the officials of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
conducted inspection in the office and found nearly Rs.1,10,000/-
collected by the petitioner from various teaching and non-teaching
staff towards payment of Auditor fees for filing the individual Income
Tax Returns for the year 2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that based on the said inspection and
recommendation of the Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned transfer
order, transferring the petitioner from Chidambaram to
Gummidipoondi. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the said impugned order is not on the administrative reasons, hence
liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24634 of 2021
3. Counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, wherein it is
stated that based on several complaints received by DVAC office on the
malpractices and corruption activities, the officials of DVAC had
conducted sudden search at the 2nd respondent's office on30.09.2021
and found the petitioner was in possession of un-accounted cash to the
tune of Rs.1,10,000/- .
4. The learned additional Government Pleader has further
submitted that based on the report received from the Vigilance and
Anti Corruption team, the impugned order of transfer came to be
passed by the 1st respondent on administrative grounds, therefore the
impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
6. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the officials of DVAC had
conducted sudden search on 30.09.2021 and found the petitioner was
in possession of unaccounted cash to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- and
based on the report submitted by the DVAC and documents, the 1st
respondent found that the said act of the petitioner is contrary to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24634 of 2021
provisions of Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct
Rules 1973 and passed the impugned transfer order on administrative
reasons.
7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to rely upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose Vs.State of
Bihar reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 has held that the Courts should
not interfere with the transfer orders made on administrative reasons
unless the there is violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the
ground of malafide. The relevant portion of the judgment is
extracted below;
“In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with
a transfer order which are made in public interest
and for administrative reasons unless the transfer
orders are made in violation of any mandatory
statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A
Government servant holding a transferable post has
no vested right to remain posted at one place or the
other, he is liable to be transferred from one place
to the other. Transfer orders issued by the
competent authority do not violate any of his legal
rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation
of executive instructions or orders, the Courts
ordinarily should not interfere with the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24634 of 2021
executive instructions or orders, the Courts
ordinarily should not interfere with the order
instead affected party should approach the higher
authorities in the Department....”
Further in the case of LM.Salim & another Vs. Principal Chief
Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern
Railway Chennai & 3 others, wherein I had an occasion to deal with
the similar issue in detail by relying upon various decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that in the absence of any such legal
ground, routine administrative transfers can never be interfered with
by the Constitutional Courts. The relevant portion is extracted
hereunder;
“7. That apart, administrative transfers are the prerogative
of the Department concerned and the competent
authorities are the best persons to assess and act
accordingly. However, those competent authorities should
act in the interest of public and in the event of any
illegality or some personal motive, then alone, the
employee can approach the Court of law for appropriate
remedy. In other words, if an order of transfer is issued
with malafide intention or in violation of the statutory
rules, then alone a writ petition can be entertained. Even
in such cases, the allegation of malafide intention must be
substantiated in the writ proceedings and the official
concerned must be impleaded as party respondents in the
writ proceedings. In the absence of any such legal ground,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24634 of 2021
routine administrative transfers can never be interfered
with by the Constitutional Courts. Transfer is an incidental
to service, more so, a condition of service. Public servant is
liable to work wherever he is posted in the interest of
public administration. On accepting the offer of
appointment, a person is agreeing for the conditions of
service and transfer being incidental, he must be in a
position to work, wherever he is posted.
......
9. In State of U.P. and others vs. Siya Ram and
others [(2004) 7 SCC 405], the Honourable Supreme
Court has held that unless the order of transfer is shown
to be an outcome of malafide exercise or stated to be in
violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such
transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot
interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as
though they were the appellate authorities substituting
their own decision for that of the employer / management,
as against such orders passed in the interest of
administrative exigencies of the service concerned.
10. Further, in Airports Authority of India vs. Rajeev
Ratan Pandey and others [(2009) 8 SCC 337], the
Honourable Supreme Court has held that in the matter of
transferring Government employees, the scope of judicial
review is limited and the High Courts should not interfere
with an order of transfer lightly.
11. In the instant case, on perusal of the materials
available on records, this Court does not find any mala
fide exercise or violation of any statutory provision on the
part of the respondents and therefore, the impugned
transfer orders and the consequential relieving orders do
not warrant any interference of this Court and the writ
petitions are therefore liable to the dismissed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24634 of 2021
8. In the present case on hand, the vigilance and Anti Corruption
team after search, has confirmed the complaints received against the
petitioner and based on the report and documents, the 1st respondent
has passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2021, transferring the
petitioner from Chidambaram to Gummidipoondi on administrative
grounds. This Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by
the 1st respondent.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
decision of the Hon'be Supreme Court cited and this Court cited supra,
this Court cannot accept the request of the petitioner seeking
interference of the impugned transfer, which is purely on
administrative reasons and the same is liable to be rejected.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
07.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24634 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
ak
To
1. The Joint Director (Personnel Division)
Office of the Joint Director of School Education,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600006.
2.The District Education Officer,
Chidambaram.
W.P.No.24634 of 2021
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
