Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. By consent of both the counsels, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 13.4.2005, under which the second respondent has transferred the petitioner to the Government High School, Aviyoor. 3. Mr. V. Vivekanandan, Government Advocate taken notice on behalf of the respondents and reported before this Court after getting the instructions. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a watchman on 2.2.1990 in the Government High School, Chettikurichi, Virudhunagar District and thereafter, transferred to Government High School, Aviyoor as Office Assistant on 3.7.1992, wherein he is working. 5. Reference to the impugned order would show that two references stated in the impugned order, that one about the complaint by the public, and the second reference about a letter namely 75/05 dated 5.4.2005 stated to have been written by the Head Master of High School, Aviyoor addressed to the District Educational Officer. On an earlier occasion when it came up before this Court, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to ascertain about the second referred letter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of the second referred letter of the Head Master of the High School of Aviyoor addressed to the District Educational Officer; that letter is a compliant given by the Head Master about the conduct of the petitioner namely that the petitioner's behaviour with the lady teachers and also threatening that if any action is taken he would make others answerable under untouchability Act. 7. It is seen from the impugned order of transfer that it is passed on administrative ground, but it appears that the order was passed by way of punishment and based on the complaint against the conduct of the petitioner. If that be so, the petitioner is certainly entitled for proper opportunity to defend himself as to whether the complaints against him by the Public or by the Headmaster is proper or not by way of an enquiry. 8. If that be so, the petitioner is certainly entitled for proper opportunity to defend himself as to whether the complaints against him by the Public or by the Headmaster is proper or not by way of an enquiry. 8. In these, circumstances, this Court is of the view that the transfer order passed by way of punishment is without any opportunity to the petitioner and on the face of it, the order of transfer is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 9. The setting aside of the impugned does not mean that the respondents are not entitled to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. If there is a complaint against the petitioner especially in respect of moral behaviour, it is certainly the duty on the part of the respondents to take action in accordance with law and that should be done only after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and to make proper enquiry in the manner known to law. 10. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are also closed. There is no order as to costs.