Madras High Court
S.Subramanian vs The Senior Regional Manager on 25 January, 2022
W.P(MD)No.4718 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD) No.4718 of 2020 & 3349 of 2021 and
WMP(MD) Nos.4090, 2704 & 2705 of 2020
S.Subramanian Petitioner in
W.P(MD) No.4718 of 2020
A.Ramesh Petitioner in
W.P(MD) No.3349 of 2021
Vs.
1.The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd,
No.100, Annanagar,
Madurai – 625 020.
2.The District Manager,
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. Respondents in both WPs
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling
for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the second
respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Aa1/3617/2020, dated
21.02.2020 AND Na.Ka.No.A1/4774/2021, dated 10.02.2021 and quash
the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4718 of 2020
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Raghunathan
(In W.P(MD) No.4718 of 2020)
For Petitioner :Mr.Jerin Mathew
(In W.P(MD) No.3349 of 2021)
For Respondents :Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
Standing Counsel
(In both WPs)
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions are filed as against the order of transfer.
2.Both the writ petitions are pertaining to the order of
transfer passed by the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd and
therefore, this Court is taking up both the writ petitions together and
dispose of the same by way of a common order.
3.The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4718 of 2020 was working
as Supervisor in TASMAC Shop No.4722, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari and
the petitioner in W.P(MD) No.3349 of 2021 was working as Salesman in
TASMAC Shop No.4837, Kanyakumari District. During the surprise
inspection conducted by the flying squad in the above said shops, the
Corporation found that these petitioners were involved in commission of
selling the liquor bottles for more than MRP rate and therefore, they were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4718 of 2020
transferred, by the orders impugned in these writ petitions. Challenging
the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.
4.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the impugned orders have been passed without conducting an enquiry
and therefore, the orders are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel
has also relied on the orders of this Court in W.P(MD) No.20512 &
20552 of 2019, dated 31.10.2019, in support of his contention, where,
similar order of transfer was set aside by this Court.
5.Mr.Jammel Arasu, learned Standing counsel appearing for
the TASMAC made his submissions by relying upon the circular issued
by the Department, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd, in
Na.Ka.No.R-2/14589/2019, dated 21.01.2019 submits that in order to
maintain certain discipline and to ensure that the salesmen and
supervisors are selling the liquor bottles in the TASMAC shops, as per
the MRP rates, the Department has issued the circular. If any person is
found to be committed violation of MRP, he would be imposed with
penalty of Rs.10,000/- and he would also be liable to be transferred from
the existing shop to another Shop/Godown. He further submits that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4718 of 2020
aforesaid circular was also under challenge before this Court in W.P(MD)
No.2242 of 2020 and the same was dismissed by this Court on
17.12.2020. The learned Standing Counsel has also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in a batch of writ petition in W.P(MD) No.905 of
2020 etc.,wherein, similar transfer orders were challenged that it would
amount to double jeopardy and this Court has dismissed the writ petitions
by referring the Circular dated 21.01.2019. Therefore, these writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed, in the light of the orders passed by this Court
as above.
6.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
7.The petitioners were transferred on certain MRP violations
committed by them in the capacity of Supervisor and Salesman. Their
grievance is that even without conducting enquiry, the petitioners were
transferred. The Department has issued a Circular in
Na.Ka.No.R-2/14589/2019, dated 21.01.2019, in order to maintain
discipline among the staff of TASMAC. As contended by the learned
standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, the aforesaid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4718 of 2020
Circular was challenged in W.P(MD) No.2242 of 2020 and the same was
dismissed by this Court on 17.12.2020 in the following terms.
“5. On perusal of the Circular dated 21.01.2019,
it appears that in case, if anybody's selling the liquor
bottles for more than the M.R.P., the respondents can
impose a fine along with G.S.T., and in addition to that,
they can also transfer. This Court is of the view that
when a person is involved in a malpractices, it is the
duty of the respondents to take adequate measures to
prevent this type of malpractices. So, with that intention
only, the Circular has been issued and in order to
prevent frequency of malpractices, it is mandatory to
make transfer and the same cannot be considered as a
double punishment as stated by the learned counsel for
the petitioner. In the present case, the fine amount has
not been paid. In the TASMAC Shops, when the
malpractices are found or if there is any wrong
movement or certain illegalities, it is the discretion of
the respondents to pass transfer orders and the same
cannot be challenged and unless and until some
stringent measures are taken by the respondents against
the wrong doers, there is no chance for the respondents
to curtail these type of illegalities. Hence, this Court do
not find any merit in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4718 of 2020
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.”
8.It is seen that some of the TASMAC employees have
challenged the transfer orders in batch of writ petitions in W.P(MD) No.
905 of 2020 etc., and the same was dismissed by this Court on
08.10.2020, in the following terms:-
“7. This Court is unable to comprehend as to how
these transfer orders can be successfully questioned by
these petitioners. All that the Corporation has done is to
relocate the petitioners to a different shop/outlet or a
Depot in the interest of overall administration of the
Corporation in order to minimise the effect of frequent
malpractices indulged in by the vast majority of the
employees. Such initiative in nature, calling for
interference with the orders. In fact, this Court is of the
view that the Corporation has been treating these
violations with needless leniency and relocating them
only to a nearby Shop or Depot within the same region.
Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any cause for
complaint at all against the impugned action of the
Corporation. Further, the petitioners, who were found to
have violated the M.R.P., norms and made illegal
revenue out of it cannot have any legitimate cause for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4718 of 2020
approaching this Court questioning the transfer orders.
It is always open to the respondent TASMAC to take
effective initiative in order to infuse discipline among its
employees and prevent them from the recurring acts of
malpractices. Confronted with large scale acts of
misconduct by the employees across the State, the
minimum deterrent action the Corporation could take is
that transfer of the employees concerned as a warning
preceding a impending serious action. If such deterrent
action is to be interfered by this Court, it could only lead
to proliferation of malpractices undermining public
interest at large. Such mass transfers in public interest
with a view to arrest the repeated subversion of
discipline by the vast majoirty of the employees ought
not to be interfered with as being punitive. On the other
hand, such transfers are impelled by administrative
necessity to bring about a semblance of orderliness in
the affairs of the Corporation vis-a-vis its employees”
9.In the light of the above orders, this Court is not inclined
to entertain these writ petitions and accordingly, these writ petitions are
dismissed. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the impugned orders have been passed without
conducting any enquiry, and it is seen that the respondent arrived at a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4718 of 2020
conclusion by way of surprise inspection alone that these petitioners
were involved in MRP violation, it is open to the respondent Corporation
to conduct an enquiry with regard to the allegations, after providing an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to take further course of
action. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
25.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vrn
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 Senior Regional Manager,
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd,
No.100, Annanagar,
Madurai – 625 020.
2.The District Manager,
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4718 of 2020
B.PUGALENDHI, J
vrn
Common Order made in
W.P(MD) No.4718 of 2020 & 3349 of 2021 and
WMP(MD) Nos.4090, 2704 & 2705 of 2020
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
