The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an administrative transfer order. The Court held that the transfer, aimed at maintaining peace during pending disciplinary proceedings, was a valid exercise of administrative power.
The writ petition is dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.11.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
W.P.(MD)No.18466 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
M.Annavi Muthu
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer (Distribution), TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli Regional, Tirunelveli-11.
2.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirunelveli-11. ... Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the impugned transfer order passed by the first respondent in Memo No.015078/636/Adm/C2/2013-1 dated 06.11.2013 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Kannan
ORDER
The petitioner is working as Junior Engineer Grade-I in Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle. Now, the first respondent, by his Proceedings in Memo No.015078/636/Adm/C2/20131 dated 06.11.2013 has transferred him to 110KV SS / Aviyoor in Virudhunagar EDC, as against the existing vacancy, on administrative exigencies. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.
2.This writ petition has come up today for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records carefully.
3.In this writ petition, it is contended that in quick succession, the petitioner has been transferred on three occasions, within a span of nine months. Thus, according to the petitioner, the impugned order is a measure of victimisation. It is further stated that there is no administrative reason for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transferring the petitioner from the present place. It is also contended that the petitioner had already filed a different writ
2
petition seeking some other relief against the Department. Because of the same, the petitioner is now victimised, it is contended.
4.I have considered the above submissions.
6.In view of all the above, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(T&P)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
RL/4 c- 2/12/2013
W.P.(MD)No.18466 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can interfere with an order of transfer made on administrative exigencies during the pendency of a charge memorandum.
Whether frequent transfers amount to victimisation sufficient to ground a writ petition for quashing a transfer order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Annavi Muthu
The Chief Engineer (Distribution), TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli Regional
The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle
S. Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
