P Rama Devi Vs the State of Ap

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

W.P.No.14284 of 2025

O R DE R:

The present writ petition is filed questioning G.O.Rt.No.82, Department of Tribal Welfare (Services) dated 09.06.2025, transferring the Petitioner from Tribal Welfare, Seethampeta to Tribal Welfare, Nellore and posting Respondent No.4 in the place of the Petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows:

¶6

The Petitioner was selected as Assistant Executive Engineer through A.P. Public Service Commission on 12.07.2025 and joined in the Tribal Welfare Engineering Department on 26.07.2005 and was posted at Paderu. Later, she has been promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer on 13.02.2009 and further promoted as Executive Engineer on 17.10.2024. On promotion as Executive Engineer, the Petitioner was posted to Seethampeta, ITDA and has been discharging her duties under two District Collectors i.e. Parvathipuram Manyam and Srikakulam District under the supervision of three IAS Officers i.e. two District Collectors and a Project Director.

¶7

2

¶8

3. While so, Respondent No.2 submitted a report to

¶9

Respondent No.1 and based on which the impugned transfer proceedings were issued. The Petitioner pleads that she had received appreciation letters from two District Collectors of Parvathipuram Manyam and Srikakulam on 05.06.2025 and that she has significantly contributed to the road connectivity project for Doli Habilitations and also managed various departmental activities like PM Janman etc. It is stated that the Petitioner was issued a memo on 28.01.2005 by Respondent No.2 based on a complaint said to have been received from Konda Gorri Babu Rao, however, on inquiry, no such person is available in the locality as per the report dated 19.05.2025 of VRO Meliaputti and Assistant Executive Engineer.

¶10

Again, Respondent No.2 issued another memo on 31.05.2025 stating that the Petitioner was unauthorizedly absent on 27.05.2025 and 28.05.2025 even though she proceeded on casual leave. The Petitioner submits that, pursuant to the memo dated 28.01.2025, the Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 22.03.2025 and also submitted a representation dated 05.03.2025 to Respondent No.1 regarding the harassment made by Respondent No.1. The Petitioner contends that she was

¶11

3

¶12

posted at Seethampeta only in October 2024 and the allegations against the Petitioner, in a span of six months, are manufactured to suit the unofficial Respondent.

¶13

Learned Government Pleader filed a counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the impugned order, Respondent No.4 had reported to duty on 18.06.2025 and started discharging his duties as Executive Engineer, Seethampeta and was also being allotted to work. A new CFMS ID has also been created in favour of Respondent No.4 at Seethampeta as a Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) in place of the Petitioner. A reference was also made to G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 15.05.2025, wherein transfer guidelines were framed for the welfare of the employees and further pleaded that transfer of an employee is an incident of service and the judicial review on the matters of transfers is very limited subject to certain exceptions like if an order is ex facie illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

It is also stated that there is a condition in the transfer guidelines that the employees who have not completed five years of service shall not be invariably be transferred, but the said condition has its own limitations that the State is bound to deliver

¶15

4

¶16

services at various places and require men and power at various stations and hence, the transfer is a key to achieve the same. It is further contended that there is no bar for the authorities to transfer employees who have not completed five years of continuous service as provided in the transfer guidelines. It is further stated that there are certain allegations against the Petitioner in connection with misappropriation of funds, sanctioning of works, and discharging of duties and pursuant to the same, a show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner and though the Petitioner had submitted her explanation, the Respondent is yet to decide on this aspect.

¶17

A reference was also made to certain allegations against the Petitioner which were published in Andhra Jyothi newspaper about the works and therefore, prima facie, fraud is established against the Petitioner. It is further mentioned that the power of transferring an employee to other place is always vested with the department for conducting a free, fair and transparent enquiry to bring the allegations into the light and therefore, the impugned transfer cannot be termed punitive.

¶18

5

¶19

Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit stating that Respondent No.4 was promoted as Executive Engineer vide G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 17.10.2024 and posted as Deputy Chief Engineer ITDA. While so, Respondent No.1 had reviewed the panel of Executive Engineers for the year 2020-21 for effecting notional promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer and consequently, one of the feeder category junior, namely Smt. B.Vasantha (ST) was included in the panel and Respondent No.4 was reverted to the post of Executive Engineer from the post of Superintendent Engineer vide G.O.Rt.No.9 dated 31.05.2025, ever since Respondent No.4 was awaiting posting orders from the higher authorities. It is further stated that consequent to the impugned proceedings, the Petitioner had joined and has been working there in Seethampeta.

¶20

In reply affidavit filed by the Petitioner, it is submitted that though Respondent No.4 was reverted to the post of Executive Engineer from the post of Superintendent Engineer vide G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 31.05.2025, the Respondent No.2 had neither sent any proposals for joining Respondent No.4 at Nellore though there was a clear vacancy and awaiting for posting for a period of four (4) months intentionally to act after the Government

¶21

6

¶22

lift ban on the transfers. It is further stated that a reference was also made to F.R.No.17 of A.P. Fundamental Rules, which states that transfer is not completed until the certificate of transfer of charge has been signed by both the relieving and relieved Government servants and that the Petitioner did not handover charge to Respondent No.4 and therefore, Respondent No.4 cannot claim to have assumed Office on 11.06.2025. At Para 6 of reply affidavit, the Petitioner explained the harassment extended by Respondent No.2 with regard to the change of staff and acts akin thereto.

¶23

No counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No.3 in his individual capacity.

¶24

Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel contended that transfer is made with an intention to accommodate Respondent No.4 and that the transfer within a short gap of seven (7) months is not contemplated under the transfer guidelines. Further, learned senior counsel submits that the husband of the Petitioner is working as Deputy Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department at Srikakulam and the transfer guidelines provide for transfer for the posting of spouses

¶25

7

¶26

at the same place. It was further contended that the transfer was only to accommodate Respondent No.4 as he was made to wait since January, 2025 after reversion, even though a clear vacancy was available in Nellore.

¶27

Learned senior counsel Sri M.Vijay Kumar would submit that the transfer is an incident of service and contended that nothing specific has been pointed out as how the impugned transfer proceedings warrant interference.

¶28

Learned Government Pleader submits that the transfer was in view of the report said to have been submitted by Respondent regarding certain allegations in execution of works by the Petitioner.

¶29

The issue that falls for consideration is, whether the transfer of the Petitioner can be sustained?

¶30

The transfer is an incident of service and the Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised for bona fide reasons and in the public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive i.e to

¶31

8

¶32

accommodate another person, it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfer of an employee requires justifiable reasons. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Seshrao Nagorao Umap v. State of Maharashtra and Others¹ , after referring to the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu² , opined as regards frequent transfers as under :

¶33

“7...........Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers, cannot, but be held as mala fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, that is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even the administrative actions should be just and fair. Frequent unscheduled and unreasonable transfers can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to the employee and drive him to desperation. It disrupts the education of the children and leads to numerous other inconveniences and problems and results in hardship and demoralisation.........”

¶34

1 1984 (2) SLR 328

¶35

2 A.I.R.1974 SC 555

¶36

9

¶37

15. The said judgment was referred by Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.Varada Rao v. State of Karnataka³ .

¶38

16. In this case, the transfer of the Petitioner within a short span of 7-8 months was sought to be justified on a letter submitted by Respondent No.2 on 21.2.2025, but curiously, this letter was not filed by the Respondent No.2 along with the counter affidavit. It is not the case of the Respondent No.2 that the letter dated 21.2.2025 is a classified document requiring secrecy to be maintained. On the contrary, the District Collector of Parvathipuram Manyam District addressed a letter to the Respondent No.1 on 05.06.2025 vide Rc.No.20/2025/Spl. and sought for continuance to ensure smooth completion of the road connectivity works as the Petitioner as Executive Engineer of TW Division had significantly contributed to the same. A letter on similar lines was addressed by the Collector, Srikakulam District, on 05.06.2025 vide Rc.No.2/25.A4. In the light of the recommendatory letters of the District Collectors and the intentional act of Respondent No.2 in not filing the letter dated 21.02.2025 along with the counter affidavit of Respondent No.2 to

¶39

3 (1986) 4 SCC 131

¶40

10

¶41

justify the transfer, this Court has no choice but to believe that there are no bona fide reasons for transfer.

¶42

17. Secondly, in the counter affidavit of the Respondent No.2, there is no explanation as to why Respondent No.4 was not given any posting since January 2025, even though there was a clear vacancy of Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Nellore. This approach of Respondent No.2 bolsters the plea that the transfer was effected to favour Respondent No.4 and the adverse reports were manufactured by Respondent No.2 to ensure the Petitioner is transferred.

¶43

18. Thirdly, as there are allegations that the transfer was malicious, the Chief Engineer was impleaded in personal capacity as Respondent No.3, but no counter-affidavit was filed denying the allegations. Fourthly, it is informed to the Court that Respondent No.3 was allegedly caught red-handed by ACB officials in a trap demanding Rs.25 lakhs in August, 2025 and lastly, the alleged adverse report against the Petitioner was issued on 21.02.2025, but till date no follow up action was taken which adds to the plea that the allegations against the Petitioner are only for the sake of transfer.

¶44

11

¶45

19. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶46

(i) The impugned order issued by Respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.82 Department of Tribal Welfare (Services) dated 09.06.2025 is set aside;

¶47

(ii) The Respondent No.1 is at liberty to take an appropriate decision regarding continuance of the Petitioner in the event there are sustainable allegations against the Petitioner.

¶48

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶49

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶51

Date: 13.11.2025 KLP

P Rama Devi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Rama Devi v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chivukula Kanakadurga Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dommeti Subha Jyothi Vs the State of Ap

K Andrus Johnson Jayakar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B Jagan Vs the State of Ap

Chapati Venkata Pratyusha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B Prasanna Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh