A.Marimuthupandian Vs The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned reliving order passed by the 2 nd

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.21267 of 2025

¶18

respondent in Na.Ka.No.BB3/2664971/2024 dated 03.12.2024 and the consequent order in passed by the first respondent Na.Ka.No. 39773/2024/C3 dated 12.07.2024 and quash the same as illegal and further directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to discharge his duties in the 4 th respondent.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani (R1 & R2) Special Government Pleader Mr.S.Vinodh (R3 & R4) Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned reliving order passed by the 2 nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.BB3/2664971/2024 dated 03.12.2024 and the consequent order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.39773/2024/C3 dated 12.07.2024 and also to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to discharge his duties in the 4 th respondent.

¶22

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

¶23

materials placed before this Court.

¶24

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

¶25

2/6

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.21267 of 2025

¶27

3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant in the first respondent department in Thiruchuli Panchyat Union in the year 2012. In the year 2018, he was transferred to Aruppukottai Panchayat Union and in 2021, again transferred to Thiruchuli. At the time of joining in the transferred place, there was a quarrel in regard to refusing to give attendance register. Pursuant to the same, he was issued with charge memo and he was also suspended and pursuant to the order of this Court, after enquiry, suspension was revoked in the year 2023 and he was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect and challenging the said punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent and the same is still pending. Subsequent to revocation, he was placed in the fourth respondent office. While this being so, the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 came to be passed relieving the petitioner and the subsequent order dated 12.07.2025 came to be passed transferring him in Sivagangai District on administrative grounds. Challenging the said orders, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

¶29

with regard to the allegation made against the petitioner, he was imposed

¶30

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

¶31

3/6

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.21267 of 2025

¶33

with a punishment. While this being so, issuing relieving order at this time and transferring him to another district would amount to punishment again for the same allegation. He also submits that his transfer to another district would affect his seniority and hence, he prays for quash of the impugned orders.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that the present transfer is only on administrative grounds and there is no adverse order with regard to his seniority. However, his seniority will be maintained only in Virudhunagar District. He would further submit that he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the same is pending. Hence, the present orders relieving and transferring the petitioner to Sivagangai District by retaining his seniority are only on administrative grounds, which need not interference by this Court.

¶35

Admittedly, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of

¶36

stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect

¶37

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

¶38

4/6

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.21267 of 2025

¶40

for the charge framed against him. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same is also pending. Further, it is also submitted that the petitioner’s seniority will not be affected due to his transfer to another district and transfer is only on administrative grounds.

¶41

In view of the above observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation before the first respondent seeking re-posting to parent unit. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶42

20.08.2025

¶43

Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Sm

¶44

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

¶45

5/6

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.21267 of 2025

¶47

M.DHANDAPANI, J.