Judgment :- (Petition filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of dismissal passed by the Respondent in P.R.No.18/2000, dated 7.8.2001 and quash the same and other reliefs stated therein has been transferred to this court and re-numbered as W.P.No. 26429 of 2005.) The petitioner prays to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of dismissal passed by the respondent in P.R.No.18/2000, dated 7.8.2001 and quash the same. 2. In the brief facts stated in the affidavit, it is stated that a transfer order was passed against the petitioner on 21.8.2000 transferring the petitioner from Egmore Railway Police Station to Coimbatore Railway Police Station. The petitioner made several representations to retain her in Chennai Station as she was having 11 months old child. However, the same was not considered and she has challenged the order of transfer in O.A.No. 7740 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal and obtained an interim stay of the order on 20.8.2000. The said stay order was in operation till 4.6.2002 and the main O.A. was disposed of by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal on 4.6.2002. The operative portion of the order disposing the above O.A. along with the connected O.A. reads as follows:- "Therefore in none of the cases, it can be stated that orders of transfer passed is in violation of any statutory rule or motivated by malafides. Transfer is exigency of service and Judicial Tribunal cannot interfere because the orders of transfer mostly passed in the interest of better administration. Therefore, all these applications are dismissed. It is open to the Government to pass appropriate orders based on the individual cases on merits. Some of the applications having been filed praying for a direction to the authorities to consider their representations and requests for transfer to a particular place or retention in the present place. It is open to the authorities to consider those representations and pass appropriate orders." 3. The petitioner was issued a charge memo on 12.2.2001 alleging that she refused to obey the transfer order and went on medical leave. An enquiry was conducted and after enquiry, report was submitted stating that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved. Consequently, the impugned order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service was issued on 7.8.2001. The petitioner was issued a charge memo on 12.2.2001 alleging that she refused to obey the transfer order and went on medical leave. An enquiry was conducted and after enquiry, report was submitted stating that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved. Consequently, the impugned order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service was issued on 7.8.2001. The said order has been challenged in the O.A.No.5393 of 2001. The Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal while ordering notice of motion in the O.A., granted interim stay of the operation of the order on 23.8.2001 which was extended until further orders on 30.9.2001. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above order was challenged in the W.P.No. 13493 of 2002 before this Court and taking note of the re-instatement of the petitioner on 10.5.2002, the writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 16.12.2003 and in view of the interim stay, the petitioner is continuing in service. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner was upgraded as Head Constable with effect from 24.1.2003 by an order dated 16.6.2003. In the writ petition, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner disobeyed the order of transfer and therefore, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed. 4. The point in issue is whether the respondent can initiate disciplinary proceedings when the transfer order was stayed by the Tribunal as early as on 20.10.2000. As stated above, for non compliance of the transfer order issued in the year 2001, the impugned order of dismissal was also passed in the year 2001 when the transfer order is stayed by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal. 5. Since the transfer order is stayed and seized of by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, the respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the petitioner has not obeyed the transfer order and applied for medical leave. Hence, the charge itself is baseless and consequently the conduct of enquiry and the punishment imposed on the petitioner can be treated as nullity. In view of the said finding that the charge itself is baseless, the impugned order is unsustainable as it is devoid of merits and without jurisdiction. Hence, the charge itself is baseless and consequently the conduct of enquiry and the punishment imposed on the petitioner can be treated as nullity. In view of the said finding that the charge itself is baseless, the impugned order is unsustainable as it is devoid of merits and without jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There is no order as to costs.