Sri. M. Ravinder vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4071 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                WRIT PETITION NO.6854 OF 2021


                               ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the transfer order

dt.29.01.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent as being against the

guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.182 dt.21.05.2016.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are

that the petitioner was initially appointed as Panchayat Secretary, Grade-

II at Kanakamamidi Village and later he was transferred to Veljarla

Village Gram Panchayat on 12.11.2019 on promotion. The petitioner

was working as Panchayat Secretary, Grade-II at Veljarla Village of

Farooq Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from 12.11.2019. It is

submitted that the petitioner's wife is working as a school teacher in

Kanakamamidi High School at Kanakamamidi Village, Moinabad

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner made a request to transfer

him to Kanakamamidi Village on spouse ground. However, his request

was not considered and therefore, the petitioner applied for long leave

from 19.11.2019 to take care of his six weeks old daughter who was

residing with her mother and who was not well. It is submitted that W.P.No.6854 of 2021

thereafter, there was Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown and thereafter,

the petitioner reported for duty to the Panchayat Raj Commissioner only

on 22.10.2020. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued with a

charge memo dt.28.09.2019 with regard to a layout demolition at

Kanakamamidi Village which allegedly happened in the month of July,

2019. The petitioner is stated to have submitted an explanation to the

charge memo. It is submitted that while the investigation was under

process, the petitioner was transferred from Veljarla Village to

Jogulamba-Gadwal District vide proceedings dt.28.11.2020. Since the

distance between Jogulamba-Gadwal District and Kanakamamidi

Village is approximately 250 k.ms., and the petitioner's wife was living

alone with two daughters and the petitioner's old parents with her, the

petitioner again sought transfer from Jogulamba-Gadwal District to

Ranga Reddy District. Meanwhile the enquiry proceedings were

concluded and an enquiry report was submitted on 21.11.2020 and vide

proceedings dt.29.01.2021, the petitioner has been transferred from

Jogulamba-Gadwal District to Sangareddy District. Challenging the

transfer orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

W.P.No.6854 of 2021

3. The case of the petitioner is that his transfer order is passed as a

punishment and not on administrative exigencies. He submits that

transfers can only be made on administrative exigencies and not as a

measure of punishment. For this proposition, he places reliance upon a

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari

Vs. Union of India and others1. He further submits that since the

enquiry report has already been submitted and no action has been taken

thereafter, his transfer order to Sangareddy District, which is also far

away from Kanakamamidi Village where his wife, old parents and

minor children are living, is bad in law.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other

hand, relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and

submits that where disciplinary proceedings are pending, posting orders

to employees shall be issued in clear existing vacancies without shifting

other employees. He submits that this transfer order has been passed

strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.81, dt.18.06.2018. He submits

that the petitioner's continuation in Ranga Reddy District would be

detrimental to the smooth administration of public. Therefore, he has

(2009) 2 SCC 592 W.P.No.6854 of 2021

been transferred to Sangareddy District which is nearer to

Kanakamamidi Village as compared to Jogulamba-Gadwal District.

Thus, according to him, the request of the petitioner has been considered

while transferring the petitioner to Sangareddy District and the

petitioner should not have any grievance to the same.

5. Sri Siripuram Kaumud, learned counsel representing M/s.

Chandrasen Law Offices, learned counsel for the petitioner had also

places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of X Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh

and another2, wherein the difficulties placed by the employee therein

with regard to his transfer to a place far away from his family, have been

considered and directions were given to reinstate the petitioner therein

without back wages but with continuity of service.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

it is noticed that this is a case of transfer and not termination of services.

Admittedly, there were charges against the petitioner with regard to

misconduct in discharge of his official duties. However, as seen from

the counter affidavit filed, the enquiry report has already been submitted

2022 SCC OnLine SC 171 W.P.No.6854 of 2021

and the only remaining action is passing of an order by the disciplinary

authority. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh

Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others (1 supra), transfer order cannot

be an order of punishment. The disciplinary authority, if satisfied with

regard to the charges against the petitioner, would have to impose

punishment which is enumerated in the service rules and transfer is not

one of the punishments enumerated therein. In the counter affidavit, the

respondents have stated that transfer is not a punishment. Therefore,

such punishment cannot be sustained. However, it is the respondents

who can post the petitioner in any existing vacancy in Ranga Reddy

District as per the administrative exigency only.

7. In view thereof, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent

dt.29.01.2021 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to make a

representation to the respondents requesting to consider his case for

transfer to a place nearer to Kanakamamidi Village where his wife is

working, within a period of 15 days from today and on such

representation being made, the respondents shall take a decision thereon

within a period of two weeks thereafter and communicate the same to

the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the W.P.No.6854 of 2021

petitioner has not reported for duty at Sangareddy. The learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is on leave. The period from

today till the petitioner's representation is disposed of by the

respondents, i.e., four weeks from today shall be considered as leave due

to the petitioner.

8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

order as to costs.

9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

also stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 08.08.2022 Svv