Disposed¶51

K.Murugesan v. the Additional Secretary to Government

Madras HC8 Aug 2025WP/17463/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punitive transfer; transfer coupled with suspension; charge memo nexus; Article 226 judicial review of administrative transfer; writ court will not micromanage administration; no mala fide; TNSTC Salem driver Meiyanoor to Hosur; representation dated 26.04.2025 to be considered within eight weeks; interim stay of impugned order; certiorarified mandamus; W.P No. 17463 of 2025; WMP Nos. 19804 and 19805 of 2025; Madras High Court; C. Kumarappan, J.; 08-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.04.2025 on its own merits and pass orders in accordance with law within eight weeks; the impugned order stayed until the representation is considered; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶51

K.Murugesan Vs the Additional Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's transfer from Meiyanoor to Hosur, issued contemporaneously with a suspension order, is punitive in nature and calls for interference by the writ court. +2 more

¶29

Court's answer

The Court did not agree with the petitioner's contention that the transfer was punitive because the charge memo had been issued immediately after the transfer.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The writ court sitting under Article 226 should not micromanage the administration; deciding where and how the workforce is placed for optimum utilisation is a matter for the authority concerned.

¶38

Key takeaways

The Court found no mala fide on the part of the respondents in ordering the transfer, which was intended to enable placement of the employee for a fair and free enquiry into the alleged misconduct.ratio¶43
Without going into the merits, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.04.2025 on its own merits and pass orders in accordance with law within eight weeks.ratio¶47
Until the petitioner's representation dated 26.04.2025 is considered, the impugned order is stayed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (C. Kumarappan, J.), 08-08-2025: A TNSTC (Salem Division 1) driver challenged, via writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226, the orders dated 23.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 transferring him from Meiyanoor to Hosur along with a suspension order, contending the transfer was punitive. Held: the writ court will not micromanage administration; placement of the workforce is for the authority to decide; the contemporaneous charge memo and transfer were meant to secure a free and fair enquiry into alleged misbehaviour with a woman passenger and no mala fide was found. Noting the petitioner's representation dated 26.04.2025, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider that representation on its own merits and pass orders in accordance with law within eight weeks, staying the impugned order until then. No costs; WMP Nos. 19804 and 19805 of 2025 closed.

¶1

WP NO. 17463 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-08-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶5

W.P No. 17463 of 2025

¶6

AND

¶7

WMP Nos. 19804 and 19805 of 2025

¶8

K.Murugesan S/o. B Kandasamy, Reside At D No. 2/113 Natha Kadu, Akkiampatti Senthamangalam Taluk Namakkal District 637 409.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Additional Secretary To Government Transport Department Chairman Of Transport Corporation Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶12

The Managing Direcotr Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Salem 07.

¶13

The Geneal Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division 1, 12 Ramakrishnan Road, Salem 07.

¶14

The Assistant Manager Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Salem 07.

¶15

The Branch Manager Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Salem Division 1 Meyyanur Salem 66 005.

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to

¶18

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the order No.

¶19

E1/489/Meiyanoor Branch /TNSTC (Salem)/2025 dated 24.04.2025 passed by the

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

Respondent No. 5 and to order No. E2/820/TNSTC (Salem) /2025 dated 23.04.2025

¶22

passed by the Respondent No. 4 and quash the same and to direct the respondent to

¶23

permit the Petitioners to continue to work as Driver at Meiyanoor and to pass orders accordingly.

¶24

For Petitioner(s): M/s. N.Krishnamoorthy

¶25

For Respondent(s):

¶26

Mr.R.Sasikumar, Govt.Advocate For R1 Mr.K.Raja, S.C., For R2

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been transferred from Meiyanoor to Hosur which is punitive in nature. He further submitted that contemporary issuance of transfer order along with the suspension

¶29

order would palpably indicate that the transfer order is punitive in nature and that no transfer could be ordered as a punishment. Hence he prays this Court to interfere with

¶30

the same.

¶31

2.Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents strongly

¶32

objected and submitted that it is the 1^st transfer to the petitioner after a period of 11

¶33

years for his delinquency of misbehaving with the women passenger. Therefore, the

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

charge memo was issued. There is no nexus between the charge memo and transfer

¶36

orders. The charge memo and transfer orders have been issued after taking into consideration to have free and fair enquiry. Therefore, the administrative transfer is not amenable for judiciary review.

¶37

I have given my anxious consideration having heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶38

4.It is well settled principle of law that the Writ Court while sitting under Article 226 should not attempt to micromanage in the administration of the authority concerned. It is for the authority to decide where and how the workforce to be placed for optimum utilization. In the case in hand, the only grievance raised by the petitioner is that the charge memo is punitive in nature, as the charge memo has been issued immediately after transfer. This Court is not in a position to agree with the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel.

¶39

According to the respondent's counsel, the petitioner has misbehaved with the lady

¶40

passenger while he was serving in Meiyanoor. Therefore, as on a administration, has

¶41

to to decision of placement of the employee to have a fair and free enquiry. Hence,

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

this Court do not find any mala-fide on the part of the respondents. However, The

¶44

petitioner has invited to the attention of this Court about the representation dated

¶45

26.04.2025 given to the respondents.

¶46

6.In view of the aforesaid representation dated 26.04.2025 given by the petitioner,

¶47

without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.04.2025 on its own

¶48

merits and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from

¶49

the date of receipt of copy of this order. Until the said representation is considered,

¶50

the impugned order is stayed.

¶51