Dismissed

P.Karuppaiah v. The Director General of Police

Madras HC8 Jun 2026WA(MD)/807/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police personnel challenged their transfer as punitive, alleging it followed their complaint against an Inspector. The Division Bench held transfer on administrative grounds to prevent further misdeeds is not mala fide, noting adverse remarks in a sealed cover, dismissed the appeals, and directed consideration of representations.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed without costs; authorities directed to consider representations for re-transfer on merits as per rules; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.Karuppaiah Vs The Director General of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WA(MD)Nos.807 & 808 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 08.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

WA(MD)Nos.807 and 808 of 2026 and CMP(MD)Nos.6630 and 6631 of 2026

¶7

P.Karuppaiah ... Appellant in W.A.807/2026 K.Prabu Kumar ... Appellant in W.A.808/2026

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai -04.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

Inspector of Police, District Special Branch, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

... Respondents in both cases

¶13

PRAYER :- Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)Nos.7550 and 7547 of 2026 dated 30.04.2026.

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

WA(MD)Nos.807 & 808 of 2026

¶17

For Appellant(both WAs): Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Gurunathan For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.C.Jeganathan, Counsel for State

¶18

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶20

Challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge

¶21

dismissing the writ petitions filed challenging the transfer of the appellants/writ petitioners from Special Branch, Peraiyur and T.Kallipatti respectively to Tirunelveli City Police Commissionerate, on the ground that transfer has been effected on administrative grounds, these writ appeals have been filed.

¶22

The main ground of challenge made before the Writ Court was

¶23

that the transfer is the result of punitive action since writ petitioners were directed to be posted in non sensitive posts. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that it is not a mere transfer, whereas it is in the nature of punishment. It is further submitted that when the appellants were working in Special Branch, Peraiyur, it was

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

WA(MD)Nos.807 & 808 of 2026

¶27

brought to the notice of the higher officials about the act of an Inspector of Police in closing the accident in the quarry as a motor accident case. Based on the complaint, the Inspector was also shifted to another place. Immediately after two months, the appellants have been transferred. Hence, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the transfer of the appellants is nothing but punitive in nature.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the Government would submit that action initiated against the Inspector of Police by the higher officials is noway connected with the transfer of the appellants herein, whereas the transfer of the appellants were made on administrative grounds at the instructions of the 1^st respondent on the specific inputs about their involvement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer of the appellants is punitive in nature.

¶29

We have perused the entire materials.

¶30

If the transfer is effected mala fide as a punishment, the Court

¶31

will normally interfere with the same, whereas, if the transfer is made on

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

WA(MD)Nos.807 & 808 of 2026

¶35

the ground of administrative convenience and also to prevent any further misdeeds of the concerned employee in a particular place, it cannot be said that such transfer is also the result of mala fide action. We have also perused the sealed cover produced by the learned Government counsel, wherein, certain adverse remarks have been found against the appellants. Only in order to stop further recurrence, such transfer has been effected. It is to be noted that a Government servant or employee of the public sector undertaking has no vested right to claim to be posted forever at a particular place. The transfer from one place to other place is not only an incident of service, but also a condition of service that too if necessary in public interest and also for efficiency in the public administration. Therefore, it is for the employer to decide the nature of transfer of a particular employee. Even the conduct of such employee sometimes requires transfer for smooth functioning of the administration. Therefore, we are of the view that the common order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference.

¶36

At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have already made representations to re-

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

WA(MD)Nos.807 & 808 of 2026

¶40

consider their transfer and therefore, seeks a direction to the authorities to consider the said representations and pass orders.

¶41

If any representation has been made by the appellants for re-

¶42

transfer, the same shall be considered by the authorities on their own merits and as per the existing rules. The sealed cover is handed over to the learned Government counsel.

¶43

The Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶44

[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 08.06.2026

¶45

bala

¶46

¶47

The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai -04.

¶48

The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶49

5/6

¶50

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

¶51

WA(MD)Nos.807 & 808 of 2026

¶52

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶53

bala

¶54

Inspector of Police, District Special Branch, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶55

COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN WA(MD)Nos.807 and 808 of 2026 DATED : 08.06.2026

¶56

6/6

¶57

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

P.Karuppaiah v. The Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Karuppaiah v. The Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Director of School Education Vs K. Ravichandran

Rajasekar Vs Kannagi

Nagarajan M Vs The District Collector

Justice a.Selvam (Retd.) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Home Secretary

Chinnadurai Vs The Secretary

M.a.Antony Joseph Vs The District Collector