JUDGMENT : Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned G.O.(Rt) No.358, dated 05.07.2019 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the first and second respondents to conduct counseling with transparent manner without corruption in view of the G.O. (Ms) No.279, dated 16.08.1993 issued by the Commercial Tax and HR & CE Department and G.O. (T) No.308, dated 24.06.2009 issued by the second respondent.) 1. This public interest litigation has been filed to challenge the order dated 5.7.2019 issued by the first respondent with a direction to conduct counselling in a transparent manner in view of G.O. (Ms) No.279, dated 16.8.1993 issued by the Commercial Tax and Endowment Department and G.O. (D) No.308, dated 24.06.2009 issued by the Commercial Tax and Registration Department. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government Order dated 16.8.1993, referred to above, issued by the respondent authorities laid down guidelines for transfer of District Registrars and the subsequent Government Order dated 24.6.2009 modified the earlier guidelines. Narrating the facts of the case, it is submitted that a surprise visit was made by the third respondent to the office of the Sub Registrar, Villivakkam, where one K.Gopalakrishnan was working as Sub Registrar. In the search or visit, unaccounted money was found. Based on the above incident, a transfer order was issued by the first respondent on 5.7.2019. Looking to the recovery of the unaccounted money, action was required to be taken by the respondent authorities to stop corrupt practices in view of the Government Order dated 16.8.1993. No action was initiated by the respondents despite recovery of unaccounted amount in the surprise visit and, accordingly, the public interest litigation was maintained seeking a direction for initiation of action in reference to the surprise visit and recovery of unaccounted money. 3. Learned counsel referring to the order of transfer dated 5.7.2019 submitted that as many as 15 officers were transferred on completion of the period, but so far as K.Gopalakrishnan is concerned, his name was shown separately and he was posted as District Registrar (Administration). 3. Learned counsel referring to the order of transfer dated 5.7.2019 submitted that as many as 15 officers were transferred on completion of the period, but so far as K.Gopalakrishnan is concerned, his name was shown separately and he was posted as District Registrar (Administration). It was not in consonance with the guidelines for the transfer and, accordingly, a challenge to it has been made, apart from the prayer to take action against the corrupt practices of the officers of the department pursuant to the government orders. 4. Learned Advocate General submits that pursuant to the direction of this court, status reports were submitted to show that immediate action in the matter has been taken. Initially, permission was accorded under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018, vide order dated 7.3.2019. A direction was issued to register a case against the accused officer K.Gopalakrishnan. Subsequent to the aforesaid, investigation was made and completed with final report recommending enquiry by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings against the erring officer and based on the recommendation, the department has already taken a decision to initiate departmental enquiry against K.Gopalakrishnan. He further submitted that action having been initiated pursuant to search conducted on 13.12.2018, nothing remains in this matter and, accordingly, even on the facts the writ petition now deserves to be dismissed. 5. So far as the challenge to the order of transfer is concerned, it is submitted that apart from the routine transfers of 15 officers, K.Gopalakrishnan was also transferred looking to the search conducted on 13.12.2018 where unaccounted money was found. It is further submitted that a public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matter and, accordingly, so far as the challenge to the order of transfer dated 5.7.2019 is concerned, the writ petition may be dismissed holding it to be not maintainable. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 7. The facts available on record show that on 13.12.2018 a surprise visit was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai City-II Detachment, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Inspection Cell and unaccounted money was found in the office where K.Gopalakrishnan was working. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 7. The facts available on record show that on 13.12.2018 a surprise visit was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai City-II Detachment, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Inspection Cell and unaccounted money was found in the office where K.Gopalakrishnan was working. Pursuant to the aforesaid, vide order dated 7.3.2019, the first respondent took a decision to accord permission under Section 17(A) of the Act of 1988, as amended, to register a case against K.Gopalakrishnan and, accordingly, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption registered a criminal case in Cr.No.09/AC/2019/CC-II under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended. The investigation therein was completed with the final report recommending enquiry by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings against K.Gopalakrishnan, formerly SRO. It was sent to the Vigilance Commissioner on 16.4.2021 and pursuant to the aforesaid, the department has already initiated enquiry. 8. In view of the facts given above, we find that in furtherance of the surprise visit and the availability of unaccounted money in the office, the department had taken action, as was required. The departmental enquiry is at the initial stage for the reason that prior to it a case was registered under the Act of 1988, as amended, and it is only when a recommendation was made for holding disciplinary enquiry, the department took a decision to initiate it. Apart from the aforesaid, K.Gopalakrishnan was transferred by order dated 5.7.2019, which has been challenged. 9. Per se, a challenge to the order of transfer falls within the realm of service law. A public interest litigation is not maintainable in reference to the service matters, except by way of quo warranto, as has been held by the Apex Court in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others, (2010) 9 SCC 655 . The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted herein under: “11. About maintainability of the public interest litigation in service matters except for a writ of quo warranto, there are a series of decisions of this Court laying down the principles to be followed. It is not seriously contended that the matter in issue is not a service matter. In fact, such objection was not raised and agitated before the High Court. It is not seriously contended that the matter in issue is not a service matter. In fact, such objection was not raised and agitated before the High Court. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the appellant herein was initially appointed and served in the State Electricity Board as a member in terms of Section 5(4) and from among the members of the Board, considering the qualifications specified in sub-section (4), the State Government, after getting a report from the Vigilance Department, appointed him as Chairman of the Board, it is impermissible to claim that the issue cannot be agitated under service jurisprudence. 12. We have already pointed out that the person who approached the High Court by way of a public interest litigation is not a competitor or eligible to be considered as a member or Chairman of the Board but according to him, he is a Vidyut Shramik leader. Either before the High Court or in this Court, he has not placed any material or highlighted in what way he is suitable and eligible for that post. ... 14. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. [ (2004) 3 SCC 349 ] this Court held thus: (SCC pp. 358-59, para 16) 16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilised for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [ (1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802] this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the courts should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.” The same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions, namely, B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India [ (2004) 3 SCC 363 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 616], Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra [ (2005) 1 SCC 590 ] and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2005) 5 SCC 136 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 636]. 15. The above principles make it clear that except for a writ of quo warranto, public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters.” (emphasis supplied) The above said view was reiterated in the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in Madan Lal v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (2014) 15 SCC 308 . 10. In view of the above, the challenge to the order of transfer dated 5.7.2019 is not sustainable through a public interest litigation. We further find that the order of transfer was passed looking to the surprise visit conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai City-II Detachment, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Inspection Cell and finding unaccounted money in the office. The department in those circumstances took a decision to transfer K.Gopalakrishnan to other office and assigned administrative work. The order of transfer was passed after lapse of eight months, though it should have been an immediate action. In any case, we do not find any fault in the order of transfer even in reference to the guidelines of the scheme of transfer given by the department. The order of transfer was passed after lapse of eight months, though it should have been an immediate action. In any case, we do not find any fault in the order of transfer even in reference to the guidelines of the scheme of transfer given by the department. Thus, the challenge to the order of transfer cannot be sustained. 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) no interference is made in the order of transfer dated 5.7.2019 already given effect to and even otherwise the public interest litigation is not maintainable to challenge the aforesaid order; and (ii) the department after registration of the case under the Act of 1988, as amended, and after investigation recommended enquiry by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and based on the same departmental enquiry has already been initiated against K.Gopalakrishnan. In view of the above, appropriate action in the matter has been taken, thus no further direction is required other than to direct the respondent authorities to expedite the disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same at the earliest. There will be no order as to costs. W.M.P.Nos.5069 and 5072 of 2020 are closed.