The High Court examined a writ petition against the transfer of a Junior Assistant from Medak to Nalgonda District during a departmental enquiry. The Court held the transfer was valid under administrative exigencies
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 2827 OF 2019
Between:
It4.A. Quadeer, S/o Late [t4.A.Aleem, Aged about 50 years, Junior Assistant. Junior Civil Judges Court, (now under transfer to Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir) R/o. lVledak.
...PETITIONER
AND
..,RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in transferring and relieving the petitioner vide Roc.No.1680/2018-C-3 dated 26-12-2018, Order Dis No. 467lAdmn.11201 9 dated 1-2-2019 and proc.Dis. No. 206/2019/A1 dated 22-1-2019 respectively by posting him from Junior Civil Judge Court, Narsapur of [r,/edak District to the unit of District Judge, Nalgonda as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and arbitrary to the provisions Rule 10 the Judicial lvlinisterial Service Rules, 2003 and set aside the same accordingly and further be pleased to hold the petitioner is entitled to retained and continued as Junior Assistant in Court of Jr. Civil Judge Court Narsapur, Medak District with all consequential benefits.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned transfer order issued by the 1st respondent in order proc. No. 1680/2018C-3 date 26-12-2018 and consequential proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Dis.No. 467lAdmn.1120'19 dated 1-2-2019 and proceedings Dis. No.206/2019/A1 daied 22-1-2019 respectively and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, l/edak District.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D. LINGA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: MS.V. UMA DEVI, S.C. FOR TSHC
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGITVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK RSDDY
1IIRIT PETITION No. 2827 OF 2019
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble thc ChiefJ$ttce Raghvendra singh chauhan)
The petitioner has challenged the legality of the transfer order dated 26.12.2018, and the order dated OL.O2.2OI9. By the former order, he was transferred from the District Unit Medak, to the District Unit Nalgonda. By the latter consequential order, he was transferred from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, 1\4edak District, and was posted to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Court of Junior Civii Judge at Narsapur, Medak District. During the course of his service, the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur addressed a letter, dated 18.04.2078, to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, wherein he claimed that the petitioner rvas indulging in unscrupulous activities; he had received complaints from advocates alleging that the petitioner is not bringing the files to the Bench. Even the Junior Civil Judge had noticed that while preparing the statements, the
f
petitioner tends to commit mistakes. Thus, both his actions are damaging the reputation of the instituti.on.
On the basis of the said complaint, the District Judge, Medak had written to the High Court. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner. Therefore, during the pendency of the enquiry, on 26.12.2018, as stated hereinabove, the petitioner was translerred from the unit of District Judge, Medak, to the unit of District Judge, Nalgonda. Moreover, by order dated 01.O2.2019, the petitioner was posted as Junior Assistant in the Court of Principai Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. Hence, the present nrit petition belore this Court.
Ms. Sujatha, the learned counsel appearing for Mr. D. Linga Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 (the Rules,2OO3', for short), the unit of appointment for the purpose of direct recruitment, transfer, seniority, appointment as full member, shall be the revenue district. Therefore, the unit of appointment for the petitioner u'as the Medak District. However, in contravention to Rule 10 of the Rules, 2003, the petitioner has been transferred from the revenue district
of Medak, to the revenue district of Nalgonda.Therefore, the very transfer is clearly against theprocedure established by law. Hence, both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside
On the other hand, Ms. V. Uma Devi, the learned Standing Counsel lor the respondent No.1, submits that Rule 10 of the Rules, 2003 itself begins nith the words "except as othenaise prouided lrcreiru belouJ'. Therefore, the entire Rules would have to be read in toto. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in reading only a part of the Rule 10 of the Rules of 2003, and not reading the entire Rule 10 of the Rules of 2003 holisticaliy.
Secondly, according to Rule 28 of the Rules, 2003, which specifically deals with transfers and postings, " ordinarilgi' the transfer should be within the unit. However, 1n extraordinary circumstances, and for administrative exigencies, a transfer can be made outside the unit.
Thirdly, since the petitioner was facing a departmental enquiry, where the allegations ^.rere that he was not putting up the files on the Bench, and was 1n making mistakes in the statements drawn by him, order to preempt the petitioner from influencing those
l
advocates, who had filed r.n,-^r^:-.^ complaints agarnst him, it was imperative that the petitioner be transferred from Medak District to Nalgonda District. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 was justified in tralsferring the petitioner for administrative exigencies.
Lastly, an employee cannot claim to have a right of lean on a particular post at a particular location. Hence, transfer is an incident of service; it is not by way of punishment. In fact, the petitioner,s transfer was by way of precautionary measures which require to be taken on a person, who is facing departmental enquiry. Hence, the learned counsel has supported both the impugned orders.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned orders.
Rule 10 of the Rules,2003 is as under:-
"7O. Unit ofqpp ointment:- "Except as othertuise prouided lrcrein below, the unit of appointment for the purpose of direct recruitment, transfer, seniority, appointment as fullmember and discharge farwant of uacancA shall be reuenlte district. But in the case of Hgderabad City, the unit of appointment utill be the City Ciuil Courts, Hgderabad, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad. Further in the case of any Special Court constituted in the Citg of Hyderabad, for purpose of staff in these Courts, the Chief Judge, City Ciuil Court, Hgderabad slnll be the appointing authority. ..."
(Emphasis added)
5
Rule 28of the Rules , 2OO3 is as under:-
"28.Transfers and Postings:- @ fh9 transprs andpostings -of ..personshall' ordiiailybemade- bg theappointing authoritiestPithin the unit'
(2) Transfer ofmembers,of the s.eruicewho are full'membbrsor approued probationersfrom iie'iunsdictionof one appointing-authoritgto thai of anothershall be made by the High Court of Judicature,AndhraPr ade sh: Prouided....
(3)xxx
(4) xxx"
A bare perusal ofboth these rules clearly reveals that Rule 10 of theRules,2003 is subject to the other Rules contained in Rules, 2003.Therefore, the word 'transfei used in Rule 10 of theRules, 2003 would be subject to Rule 28 of the Rules, 2003.Rule 28 of Ru1es, 2003 does not place a total bar on thepowerof High Court to transfer an employee. Although, ordinarily, it is preferabie to transfer an employee within the ur-rit, but nonetheless, the power to transfer an employee, outside the unit, equally exists under Rule 28 ol the Ru1es, 2003.
Considering the fact that the petitioner was facing a departmental enquiry, where the allegation was that advocates have complained against him, it was essential 1n to remove the petitioner from his piace of posting Medak District so as to preclude him from influencing the witnesses, and tampering with the evidence. Hence,
6
the decision to transfer him from the unit of Medak District to the unit of Na-lgonda District was obviously made for administrative exigencies.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders dated 26.L2.2O18, and 01.02.2OI9. Since the writ petition is devoid of any merit, it is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTA TRAR //TRUE COPY'
S CTION OFFICER
To, 1. One CC to Sri. D. Linga Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 2. One CC to Ms. V Uma Devi, SC for TSHC (OPUC)
PM MPt D.
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/03/2020
-.-:
1Hr: J
f.,i.<br>(1i 2t APn 2il2o
<br>\i
ORDER
WP.No.2827 of 2019
Dismissing the WP Without costs.
r-:
.i a\P
-s-
/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Medak to Nalgonda District violated Rule 10 of the Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003.
Whether the transfer outside the revenue unit was justified under administrative exigencies and Rule 28 of the Rules.
It4.A. Quadeer
High Court for the State of Telangana, Rep. by its Registrar (Administration)
The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak
The Principal District Judge, Nalgonda
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
A. Abhishek Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
