Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was employed, as an Assistant Engineer, under the St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union. While so, the petitioner had been transferred to Madhurandhagam Panchayat Union, by way of the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 15.12.2011, in the place of one V.Jagannathan. In the said impugned proceedings, the second respondent has mentioned that the transfer of the petitioner had been effected, based on the request made by the said Jagannathan. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner had been transferred to Madhurandhagam Panchayat Union, on 15.12.2011, due to the complaints and allegations received against the petitioner. 3. It had also been stated that the petitioner had been, initially, transferred from Kancheepuram Panchayat Union to St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union, on 17.8.2011 considering her family situation. After the petitioner's transfer, her husband, namely, E.Parivallal, had contested for the post of Panchayat Union Ward Member, in Ward No.1 of St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union. The petitioner had been assigned certain duties, for the erection of a temporary counting booth, at NSN Matriculation School, Chitlapakkam. The political parties, who had contested in the local body elections, made certain complaints against the petitioner stating that she was working in favour of her husband during the said elections. 4. It had also been stated that the petitioner was directed to attend the Special Grama Sabha, held on 2.12.2011, at Moovarasampet Panchayat, as a Nodal Officer. The petitioner had refused to accept the order, intentionally, due to which a number of problems had arisen. In such circumstances, the petitioner had been transferred to Madhurandhagam Panchayat Union, by way of the impugned proceedings, dated 15.12.2011, issued by the second respondent. 5. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the transfer of the petitioner, by the second respondent, to Madhurandhagam Panchayat Union, by way of the impugned proceedings, dated 15.12.2011, issued by the second respondent, is illegal, as it is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 6. When certain allegations are made against the petitioner, it would have been proper for the second respondent to frame the charges and to give an opportunity of participating in the enquiry that should have been conducted, based on the said charges. 6. When certain allegations are made against the petitioner, it would have been proper for the second respondent to frame the charges and to give an opportunity of participating in the enquiry that should have been conducted, based on the said charges. As such, it would not be open to the second respondent to transfer the petitioner, based on the charges levelled against her, as it has caused a stigma on the petitioner, resulting in certain civil consequences. 7. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, had not placed before this Court the letter written by Jagannathan, based on which the impugned proceedings had been passed by the second respondent. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 15.12.2011, is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 are closed.