This single-judge bench held that a transfer order passed pending disciplinary proceedings without an inquiry was effectively punitive and illegal, even if labeled administrative, and ordered its quashal.
Impugned transfer order dated 01.07.2023 quashed. Writ petition allowed.
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.
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 21.09.2023
DELIVERED ON : 12.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)No.14623 of 2023
S.Perumal
... Petitioner
Vs.
1/11
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
4.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO / Distribution, Nagercoil.
... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding in Memo No.009267/277/Adm.I/A.1/ 2023, dated 01.07.2023 passed by the third respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabhakaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan Standing Counsel
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding in Memo No. 009267/277/Adm.I/A.1/ 2023, dated 01.07.2023 passed by the third respondent and quash the same.
2/11
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
proceedings, the impugned proceedings of transfer, dated 01.07.2023 vide office of the third respondent came to be passed, by which the petitioner was transferred and posted to the office of the fourth respondent in an existing vacancy. However, the said order was served upon him only on 15.07.2023. In view of the pending departmental proceedings, the said impugned order of transfer is punitive in nature and hence, assailing the same, this writ petition came to be filed.
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
appropriate action on the theft of energy detected in service connection No. 141-023-993 under tariff V, even after well knowing the fact that the service connection No.141-023-993 was disconnected due to non payment of CC / penal charges, worked out thereon for the theft of energy detected. The petitioner had effected another service connection in service connection Nos.141-023-1893 and 141-023-1894 to the same consumer, without following the rules and regulations of TANGEDCO with dishonest motive.
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
dismissal of this writ petition.
has been issued by the first respondent on 17.06.2023, contemplating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8(b) of the TNEB Discipline and Appeal Regulations. For which, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 07.07.2023. Without passing orders on the explanation of the petitioner on 01.07.2023, the impugned transfer order has been passed by the third respondent and the same is served on the petitioner on 15.07.2023. Though the transfer is said to be on administrative grounds, materials placed before this Court shows that the order was passed on the basis of the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the recommendation of the Vigilance Cell of TANGEDCO, Chennai and it is found that the disciplinary proceedings has been commenced under Rule 8(b) of the TNEB Discipline and Appeal Rules. No doubt the said rules do not mandate transfer order to be passed by way of punishment pending disciplinary proceedings. Though the impugned order is issued on the guise of administrative reasons, it is needless to state that the same is the effect of the disciplinary proceedings, which has been contemplated against the petitioner under Rule 8(b) of the 6/11
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
TNEB Discipline and Appeal Rules.
cases and this Court in the case of S.Sevugan Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar and Another reported in 2006 (3) LLN 326 has held as follows:
"7. It is seen from the impugned order of transfer that it is passed on administrative ground, but it appears that the order was passed by way of punishment and based on the complaint against the conduct of the petitioner. If that be so, the petitioner is certainly entitled for proper opportunity to defend himself as to whether the complaints against him by the public or by the Headmaster is proper or not by way of an enquiry.
8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the transfer order passed by way of punishment is without any opportunity to the petitioner and on the face of it, the order of transfer is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside."
7/11
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police,
Chennai and Others) , the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed similar order on 29.04.2011 and the relevant portion of which is extracted as follows:
"10. It is well settled by the Courts that no transfer order transferring Government servant under administrative reason shall be interfered with by any Court of law. Further, it has been equally settled by the Court that if any transfer order is passed by the department by way of punishment, the same cannot be resorted to except by conducting an enquiry. Though the impugned order of transfer shows that the order is passed on administrative ground, the counter read with an order passed by the Director General of Police in RC No. 140450/NGB.IV(2)/2010, dated 29.09.2010 shows that the writ petitioner Mr.R.Ponnusamy, HC 1849, PRS, Coimbatore has violated the Government Servant's Conduct Rules by administering "Athiparasakthi Temple" in the nick name of "SMT Pons" and also issued pamphlets in the name of "SMT Pons" to worship "Naga Thevathai". The said order further says that he was transferred and posted to Tiruppur District. In view of the reading of counter also supports the case of the petitioner that the order of transfer was not passed on administrative ground, but only by way of punishment based on the complaint
8/11
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
against the petitioner. That be so, the petitioner is certainly entitled for proper opportunity to defend himself as to whether the complaint against him by the Public or anybody is proper or not by way of an enquiry."
12.10.2023
NCC : Yes Index : Yes Internet : Yes BTR
9/11
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
To
10/11
W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
BTR
Order made in W.P(MD)No.17448 of 2023
12.10.2023
11/11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a transfer order passed pending disciplinary proceedings without an inquiry amounts to a punitive transfer and is liable to be quashed.
Whether the impugned transfer order was passed on administrative grounds or as a punishment for disciplinary lapses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S. Sevugan Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar and AnotherDistinguished¶47
S. Sevugan Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar and Another reported in 2006 (3) LLN 326
R. Ponnusamy Vs. The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Chennai and OthersApplied¶55
W.P.No.23205 of 2010 (R. Ponnusamy Vs. The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Chennai and Others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Perumal
Chief Engineer, Personnel, TANGEDCO
Chief Engineer, Distribution Circle, Tirunelveli Region
Superintending Engineer, Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle
Executive Engineer, Distribution, Nagercoil
Executive Engineer, Distribution, Kuzhithurai
Victoria Gowri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
