Allowed

K. Ramakrishnan, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC5 Mar 2015WP(MD)/1333/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a transfer order issued against an Assistant Manager of TASMAC. The court held that although the order was framed on administrative grounds, it was effectively punitive due to alleged misconduct. Since the petitioner was not given a hearing before the transfer, the order violated principles of natural justice and was se

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issed to call for the records and quash the impugned transfer order and relieving order.

K. Ramakrishnan, Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.03.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.1333 of 2015

¶7

and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶8

K.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Managing Director, TASMAC Limited, Chennai.

¶11

2.The District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned transfer order of the first respondent in Se.Mu.No.13753/M1/2014, dated 24.01.2015 served on 31.01.2015 and impugned relieving order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2/2013/A, dated 29.01.2015 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.M.Muniyasamy

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of transfer, dated 24.01.2015.

¶17

Through the impugned order, the petitioner was transferred from Theni of Madurai Division to Chennai to function as an Assistant Manager on administrative grounds.

¶18

The main contention in this Writ Petition challenging the said order of transfer is that the same came to be passed in the middle of the academic year, since the petitioner's son is studying 12^th Standard in P.K.N.Higher Secondary School at Thirumangalam, who has to write the Public Examination in the month of March, 2015. Further, the petitioner has also filed an affidavit of undertaking on 05.02.2015 to the effect that he is agreeing to go to the transferred place from July 2015 onwards, after the examination of his son is over.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

¶21

Counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent wherein at paragraph No.4 it is stated that the petitioner was transferred not in the criteria of general transfer, but due to the following misconducts of the petitioner:-

¶22

“1. The misappropriation sum of Rs.6,21,470/- committed by employees of the TASMAC Shop No.8625 at Theni District has been known to the petitioner, during that time itself. But he did not inform it to the superiors and the said misappropriation found during the surprise auditing conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) shows petitioner's dishonesty.

¶23

The petitioner has supported the illegal sale of bottles by declaring them as open short and sealed short for the purpose of personal gain.

¶24

The petitioner has not obeyed the orders of the superior and assigning his official work to the contract labourers without doing himself.

¶25

The petitioner has threatened the District Manager, by way of giving report to the newspapers.”

¶26

From the stand of the respondents shown in the counteraffidavit, it is evident that even though the order of transfer was passed as though on administrative reasons, in fact it is passed as a punitive measure, in view of the above stated admitted position.

¶27

Needless to say that if such transfer is made as a punitive measure, the petitioner should be put on notice before passing such order. In this case, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was issued with any notice before passing the order of transfer. Therefore, it is well settled that a punitive transfer cannot be made without hearing the person so transfer. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the same was made in violation of principles of natural Justice.

¶28

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is open to the respondents to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

sub Assistant Registrar(c.s)

¶33

¶34

1.The Managing Director, TASMAC Limited, Chennai.

¶35

2.The District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Theni District.

¶36

+1cc to M/S. K.Appadurai, Advocate in SR.No. 60888 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TS/09.03.2015/2P-4C

¶37

W.P(MD)No.1333 of 2015

¶38

05.03.2015

K. Ramakrishnan, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ramakrishnan, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Narayanan Vs the Sercretary to Government

Sivasubramanian, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Meera Maideen Vs the Accountant General of

S. Thiagaraja Vs Teh State of Tamilnadu

Dr. K.Aruna, Assistant Surgeon Vs the State of Tamilnadu

S. Ramalakshmi, Vs the Accountant General