Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1972 (MAD)

S. Raja Rajan v. Secretary to Government, Chennai

2014-07-04

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The writ petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the impugned orders of transfer passed by the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamilnadu, the 1st respondent herein, in his proceedings No.G.O.(Rt) No.698 dated 19.07.2013 and Letter No.32252/A2/2012-6 dated 18.10.2013 and the consequential orders of relieving passed by the third respondent vide Ref.No.17354/ESI/E1/1/2013, dated 13.08.2013 and Ref.No.17523/ESI/E1/1/2013 dated 5.11.2013 respectively and to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner as the Regional Administrative Medical Officer (ESIS), Coimbatore. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while serving as Regional Administrative Medical Officer, Coimbatore Tamilnadu Medical Service, transfer order has been issued to the petitioner transferring him from Coimbatore to Tenkasi. Further, the transfer order is passed by malafides. As he questioned the Subordinate officer for absence, complaint has been made against him and based on the complaint, he has been transferred from Coimbatore to Tenkasi. He contended that by reading the impugned orders dated 19.07.2013 and 18.10.2013 viz., relieving order, it would be appear that the transfer is on administrative grounds. The petitioner has made a representation on 26.07.2013 for which a reply has been sent wherein the complaint against him has been referred to in the impugned order. Since the transfer order is by means of victimisation by malafides, he requested that this Court should interfere with the order of transfer. 3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that it is administrative transfer and since the petitioner is an efficient person, his services are required in Tenkasi. Since the petitioner has not proved any malafides and that he has been relieved and that he has not reported, this court may not interfere with the order of transfer, which has been passed on administrative grounds. 4. Heard the contentions of both sides. 5. Though several adjournments were granted, the respondents have not chosen to file counter. Today, the respondents have produced a draft counter and requested that the same is taken on record. 6. As there is likelihood of change in the port folio from 07.07.2014 and several adjournments have been granted, the draft counter is taken on record. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has held that the transfer order on administrative grounds should not be interfered with. 6. As there is likelihood of change in the port folio from 07.07.2014 and several adjournments have been granted, the draft counter is taken on record. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has held that the transfer order on administrative grounds should not be interfered with. Transfer can be interfered if the petitioner is able to plead and prove malafides on the part of the administration. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1993(1) SCC 148 , Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India, the petitioner has pleaded malafides and also proved his case. As rightly contended by the petitioner, this Court has to tear the veil of deceptive innocuousness and see what is the reason for transfer and if required, the Court should examine what exactly was the real object of transfer. It may be a sweet revenge, a desire to get rid of an inconvenient employee from the present place of work. From the various documents produced before this Court, it is clear that several allegations have been made against the petitioner and the allegations have also not been proved. From the consequential impugned order, it is very clear that the original impugned order has been passed on account of a complaint shooted against the petitioner. Taking totality of the circumstances, the petitioner is about to retire shortly and that there is malafide in the order of transfer, this Court accepts the contention of the petitioner and quash the impugned orders. Since the petitioner has not joined the place of work and question the transfer order, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.392 of 1997, (The Management of Addisons Paints vs. Workmen) dated12.12.2000, the petitioner will not be entitled to any benefits till he reports from the date of transfer till the date of joining and he could have agitated the issue even after the joining under protest. 8. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. W.P.No.835 of 2013: The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the order dismissing his service by an order dated 09.10.2013 on the ground that he has committed an act of irregularities more particularly misappropriation to the tune of nearly Rs.15 lakhs. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. W.P.No.835 of 2013: The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the order dismissing his service by an order dated 09.10.2013 on the ground that he has committed an act of irregularities more particularly misappropriation to the tune of nearly Rs.15 lakhs. The petitioner contended that enquiry was not properly conducted and as there is violation of principles of natural justice, dismissal order has to be set aside. From the reading of the order dated .., the petitioner has got remedy by way of appeal to the appellate authority within 30days which he has not filed. That apart since the petitioner is workman, he has got efficacious alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. No costs.