M.Avin Kumar Vs The Director of Agricultrue

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in En.Ve.Ane 1/11154/ 2026 dated 10.02.2026 and the joining order issued by the 2^nd respondent in Me.Ku.Ka.En.Al/19341/2024 dated 24.02.2026, and quash the same insofar as transferring the petitioner to Ramanathapuram District and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to post the petitioner as Agriculture Officer in Salem District or Tiruvannamalai District or nearby Districts.

¶21

For Respondents : Mr. T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶24

“To call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in En.Ve.Ane 1/11154/ 2026 dated 10.02.2026 and the joining order issued by the 2^nd respondent in Me.Ku.Ka.En.Al/19341/2024 dated 24.02.2026, and quash the same insofar as transferring the petitioner to Ramanathapuram District and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to post the petitioner as

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.9999 of 2026

¶28

Agriculture Officer in Salem District or Tiruvannamalai District or nearby Districts. ”

¶29

The petitioner was working as an Agriculture Officer in Thanjavur District and he was later transferred to Salem District, where he continued till 26.11.2024. While so, based on a false complaint given by one Jabin Taj, an FIR in Cr.No.34 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.11.2024.

¶30

Thereafter, a charge memo dated 18.02.2025 was issued

¶31

against the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charges on 26.07.2025. Thereafter, by order dated 02.02.2026 his suspension was revoked. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately thereafter the 1^st respondent issued the impugned order dated 10.02.2026, transferring the petitioner to Thirupullani, Ramanathapuram District.

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.9999 of 2026

¶35

The petitioner would submit that the alleged incident pertains

¶36

to Tiruvannamalai District and all the relevant witnesses, records and materials relating to the disciplinary proceedings are located in and around the said district. Therefore, the petitioner cannot defend his case in the departmental proceedings. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking transfer to Salem, Tiruvannamalai or nearby districts.

¶37

It is informed by the learned Special Government Pleader for

¶38

the respondents that vacancy is only at Ramanathapuram. Therefore,

¶39

the petitioner has been transferred to Ramanathapuram, after revocation of the suspension.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶41

that there are vacancies in Tiruvannamalai and neighboring districts of Tiruvannamalai and he requested that the petitioner may be posted at Tiruvannamalai District or its neighboring districts.

¶42

4/7

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.9999 of 2026

¶45

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to proceed to Ramanathapuram and in the meanwhile the respondents shall consider transferring him back to nearby districts of Tiruvannamalai, if there is a vacancy. It is open to the petitioner to submit a representation showing vacancy in the nearby districts.

¶46