A transport corporation conductor transferred between two nearby regions challenged the transfer as mala fide, alleging it followed his complaints of mal-administration. The Division Bench found no mala fide or jurisdictional defect and upheld judicial restraint in transfer matters.
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.A(MD)No.1200 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2015 and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
S.Sheik Abdullah
... Appellant
vs.
Page No.1 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2015
5. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai), Bye-pass Road, Madurai.
... Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 15.10.2015 made in W.P(MD)No.18940 of 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.J.David Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.A.Jeyaram
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.)
Challenging the order dated 15.10.2015 made in W.P(MD)No.18940 of 2015, declining to interfere with the order of transfer of the appellant, the appellant/writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.
Page No.2 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2015
Psoriasis/Psoriatic Arthritis. Hence, he requested for alternative employment which was denied. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.6327 of 2007 and pursuant to the order passed in the said writ petition, he was given alternative employment as Non-ITI Helper in Dindigul-I, TNSTC as per the order of the 2nd respondent dated 11.08.2014. While so, the appellant was transferred by order dated 08.10.2015 of the 1st respondent from Dindigul Region-I to Dindigul Region-II. Challenging the same, the appellant filed writ petition and contended that though the transfer order states that he was transferred on administrative grounds, according to him, he was slapped with the transfer order because of the repeated complaints made by him about the mal-administration and corrupted practice in operating the buses by sacrificing the time schedule of the transport corporation, as such, the transfer order is it by malafideness. However, the learned Single Judge considering the fact that the distance between Dindigul Region-I at Dindigul and Dindigul Region-II at Manapparai, to which the appellant was transferred, is only less than 60 kilometres, dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no merit on the contentions of the appellant/writ petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel seeks interference of this Court.
Page No.3 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2015
counsel appearing for the respondent Transport Corporation submitted that the duty of the operation wing of the corporation is to review every traffic generating point and to post personnel to monitor the vehicles and to improve the revenue. Accordingly, approval was obtained by them from the management for posting a staff at Manapparai bus stand. Since the appellant had given willingness for the said work, the transfer order was issued. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the allegation of the appellant that only infuriating the attitude of the appellant in making repeated complaints about the irregularities in the department, transfer order was passed with mala fide intention, is baseless, whereas only with a view to create a ground for challenging the transfer, the appellant has made such baseless allegation. He further submitted that because of the interim stay granted by this Court, the
Page No.4 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2015
Corporation could not transfer the appellant to the needy places. Hence, the learned counsel seeks to vacate the interim order and to dismiss the writ appeal.
Page No.5 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2015
therefore, he should not be disturbed. We cannot accept such contention having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. Time and again, Courts have held that Transfer is not only an incident of service, but also a condition of service and the transfer order passed purely on administrative grounds must not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts and the Courts should maintain judicial restraint. It is also well settled that transfer order cannot be interfered with unless it is contrary to statute or malafide is alleged and proved or the authority who issued the same has no jurisdiction. In this case, none of the grounds are made out. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(V.B.S., J.) (K.K.R.K., J.) 06.03.2024
Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala
Page No.6 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2015
To
Page No.7 of 8
W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2015
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2015 DATED : 06.03.2024
Page No.8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the transfer order on administrative grounds was vitiated by mala fides and liable to interference.
S.Sheik Abdullah
The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dindigul Division
Mr.Manickavasagam, General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dindigul Division
The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dindigul Branch-1
Mr.Palamalai Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dindigul Branch-1
Mr.Veerapandi, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)
V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
K.K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
