JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order of transfer issued by the 2nd respondent in Proc. No. Ser 7(1)/ 7478/2021 dated 06.08.2021 and to quash the same.) According to the petitioner, the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1994. The petitioner while working as Special Tahsildar, the impugned transfer order has been passed by the second respondent vide proceedings No. Ser 7(1)/ 7478/2021 dated 06.08.2021 transferring the petitioner from Villupuram district to Chengalput district on administrative grounds. 2. According to the petitioner, the impugned transfer order has been passed with malicious intent to accommodate the vested interests to penalize the petitioner for having approached this Court by filing writ petition and Crl.O.P. and the matter is subjudice. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not served a single memo and the impugned transfer order has been passed without any specific ground. The impugned transfer order has been issued within a period of one and half years from the date of earlier order of transfer posting to the present station which is violation of transfer policy of the Government. The petitioner is General Secretary of Tamil Nadu State Revenue Officials Association since 2013, based on the complaint from one C.Palaniappan alleging that the petitioner had issued certain notice and letters against the Collector and lodged complaint against the petitioner. The second respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to issue an order of transfer without TTA on administrative ground. The petitioner's daughter is studying in XI Standard and his son is studying in IV Standard and his Wife is working as Teacher in Government aided Primary School at Villupuram. The impugned transfer order will lead to grave hardship to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.12252 of 2020 in the case of Dr.A.Jayachitra Vs. Principal Secretary, Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu wherein it has clearly held that in the absence of any administrative ground or exigencies, ultimately subject to the test of judicial review. Further, the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.12252 of 2020 in the case of Dr.A.Jayachitra Vs. Principal Secretary, Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu wherein it has clearly held that in the absence of any administrative ground or exigencies, ultimately subject to the test of judicial review. According to the petitioner, It is further stated that the impugned order clearly suffers from the vice of malice in law and it is also settled law that no punitive order of transfer which is stigmatic in nature shall be subjected to the scrutiny of law. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner has already filed W.P.No.4808 of 2021 seeking Mandamus, directing the respondents that the petitioner shall not be subjected to punitive order of transfer outside the district without affording an opportunity of being heard. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that there are several allegations and complaints pending against the writ petitioner in Villupuram district and he is facing enquiries in all of them. In sofar as the allegation made by the petitioner that certain serious lapses on the part of the respondents, it is stated that a detailed enquiry is being taken up by the appropriate investigating authority. It is the duty of the second respondent to facilitate the appropriate Investigating authority in conducing enquiry in a free manner on the serious allegations levelled against the writ petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed. Further, it is stated that as per Rule 10 of Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, postings and transfers of Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars from one district to another shall be made by erstwhile the Board of Revenue (now the Commissioner of Revenue Administration). Therefore, the second respondent is empowered to issue the order of transfer. The judgment dated 30.7.2021 made in W.P.Nos.4799 of 2021 and 4803 of 2021 is not applicable to the writ petitioner since the nature and circumstances in the said cases are different from the present case. Further, it is stated that it is a settled law that transfer is an incidence of service and the petitioner has been transferred so as to have a free and fair probe by the Investigating authority. Further, it is stated that it is a settled law that transfer is an incidence of service and the petitioner has been transferred so as to have a free and fair probe by the Investigating authority. The petitioner's alleged association with his self-styled TSROA cannot be made as a trump card for dereliction from discharging his regular duties and cannot be permitted to indulge in corrupt activities. According to the second respondent, the petitioner relied on G.O.Ms.No.249, Finance (Budget General – I) department, dated 21.5.2020 wherein it is stated as follows: ''g) General transfers shall be kept on hold for 2020-21 to minimise expenditure on transfer travel expenses, only transfers on administrative grounds by an authority higher than the authority normally empowered to transfer and mutual request transfers will alone be allowed.'' Further, it is stated in the counter affidavit that normally, general transfers for Tahsildars will be effected by the District Collector. In the instant case, on administrative grounds, the head of the department has issued the order for district transfer which cannot be categorized as General Transfer. Based on the order of the second respondent, the District Collector, Chengalpattu has issued posting orders on 17.8.2021 to the petitioner. Subsequently, on 24.8.2021, the orders relieving the individual from the post of Special Tahsildar (Stamps), Villupuram district has been issued on 24.8.2021 F.N. by the District Collector, Villupuram. However, the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Villupuram in his letter dated 21.9.2021 has informed that the individual has applied for earned leave from 19.8.2021 to 16.9.2021. The leave letter sent to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) on 25.8.2021 by the petitioner. Further, the individual has extended his leave from 17.9.2021. However, in his leave letter, the individual has stated that the leave to be extended till the medical treatment of his mother to be completed and till the interim orders in his writ petition has been received. It is submitted that any Government servant can only avail leave after getting prior permission/sanction from the Appropriate Authority and as per Ruling 67 of Fundamental Rules, leave cannot be claimed as of right. The petitioner, in order to evade from receiving the transfer orders, has applied earned leave and extended the leave for an indefinite period. Till date, the petitioner is absent from duty and leave also not sanctioned by the administration. The petitioner, in order to evade from receiving the transfer orders, has applied earned leave and extended the leave for an indefinite period. Till date, the petitioner is absent from duty and leave also not sanctioned by the administration. Further, the petitioner is keeping his Service Register with him against Government service Rules. Likewise, many hurdles created to the administration by the petitioner to evade the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent passed the impugned transfer order with malafide intention and the same is punitive in nature. Based on the complaint from one C.Palaniappan alleging that the petitioner had issued certain notice and letters against the Collector and lodged complaint against the petitioner. The second respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to issue an order of transfer without TTA on administrative ground. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the G.O.No.249 issued by Finance department, dated 21.5.2020 wherein in paragraph 2 under the head 304 – 01 and 02 Travelling Allowance and Daily allowance it is stated as follows: g) General transfers shall be kept on hold for 2020-21 to minimise expenditure on transfer travel expenses, only transfers on administrative grounds by an authority higher than the authority normally empowered to transfer and mutual request transfers will alone be allowed. The petitioner also relied on the G.O.Ms.No.10 issued by Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 7.1.1994, wherein the Government issued guidelines for transfer. 6. On the side of respondents, voluminous records have been produced before this Court. On perusal of the records shows that there are three disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner, out of 3 charges, in one charge, enquiry officer submitted report and in other two charges, Vigilance enquiry is pending. That apart, a criminal case in C.C.No.69 of 2021 is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Villupuram for the offences punishable under Sec. 298, 189, 353, 354, 500, 506(2), 509, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. That apart, a criminal case in C.C.No.69 of 2021 is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Villupuram for the offences punishable under Sec. 298, 189, 353, 354, 500, 506(2), 509, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Apart from the aforesaid cases, Vigilance enquiry is pending on the file of Tamil Nadu Lok Ayukta in C.C.No.5 of 2020 to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner. According to the second respondent, to facilitate free and fair enquiry by the Investigating authority, on the serious allegations levelled against the writ petitioner, the impugned transfer order has been passed by the second respondent. 7. The main contention of the respondent is that the impugned transfer order has been passed on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings and criminal case are pending against the petitioner. It is to be noted that in the disciplinary proceedings, vigilance enquiry is also pending in two cases. Apart from the disciplinary proceedings, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.1528 of 2020 on the file of Villupuram Taluk Police station for the offences punishable under Sec. 298, 189, 353, 354, 500, 506(2), 509, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and the same is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Villupuram. As against the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner also filed Crl.O.P.No.17616 of 2020 before this Court to quash the F.I.R. Further, Vigilance enquiry is also pending on the file of Tamil Nadu Lok Ayukta in C.C.No.5 of 2020. In these background, the impugned transfer order has been passed by the respondent transferring the petitioner from Villupuram to Chengalput on the serious allegations levelled against the writ petitioner. 8. The question before this Court in the instant writ petition is that whether the impugned transfer order is an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer. 9. The petitioner has already filed W.P.No.4808 of 2021 seeking Mandamus, directing the respondents that the petitioner shall not be subjected to punitive order of transfer outside the district without affording an opportunity of being heard. However, there was no order or direction issued restraining the respondents from transferring the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has already filed W.P.No.4808 of 2021 seeking Mandamus, directing the respondents that the petitioner shall not be subjected to punitive order of transfer outside the district without affording an opportunity of being heard. However, there was no order or direction issued restraining the respondents from transferring the petitioner. The petitioner relied on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.4799 & 4803 of 2021 dated 30.7.2021 [P.Velmurugan vs. The Director, The Local Fund Audit Department, Chennai and another] wherein this Court held that the impugned orders clearly indicate that they are contrary to the Transfer Policy of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.249, dated 21.5.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 7.1.1994. The aforesaid judgment will not apply to the facts of the case in hand for the reason that there was no allegation of disciplinary proceedings, Vigilance enquiry and criminal case are pending against the petitioner therein. Whereas in the instant case, the petitioner herein as a State General Secretary of Tamil Nadu Revenue officials Association in order to evade from the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner, had proceeded on leave and filed writ petitions one after another before this Court. In the counter affidavit filed, in his leave letter, the petitioner has stated that the leave to be extended till the medical treatment of his mother to be completed and till the interim orders in his writ petition has been received. Further, in the counter affidavit, serious allegation made against the petitioner that the petitioner is keeping his Service Register with him against Government service Rules and the said allegations were not refuted by the petitioner. 10. The G.O.Ms.No.10 issued by Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 7.1.1994. relied upon by the petitioner, wherein the Government issued general guidelines for transfer of the Government employee. However, there are certain exceptions to the general guidelines. It is relevant to extract Clause (f), Exceptions to the General Guidelines as follows: “(f) In cases where severe allegations are pending enquiry, when it is considered necessary in the public interest and sufficient in lieu of suspension, that the officer may be transferred in that case, transfer shall be effected to a vacant post in another station or to the post where the junior most person of the same category is working.'' 11. It is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court made in W.P.(MD) Nos.10759 & etc., batch, dated 28.10.2021, [Narasingaraja vs 1.The Director General of Police / Inspector General of Prisons, Department of Prison, Chennai-600 008] wherein Madurai Bench (myself) of this Court has held as follows: “18. In the instant case, it is seen that the impugned transfer orders are stated to have been passed on administrative grounds. The Government, by G.O.Ms.No.10, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 07.01.1994, has issued revised instructions in the matter of transfer of Government servants from one station /post to another once in three years. Subsequently, the Government, vide Letter dated 09.08.1994, clarified G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 07.01.1994, clarifying that when transfers on complaints / allegations are made after preliminary enquiry, it should be followed up by a detailed investigation and disciplinary action instituted on allegations finally found to be substantiated. The relevant portion of the said letter is extracted hereunder: “(III). In the said G.O. In sub-clause (f) of para III (vii), the following shall be added at the end: “Transfers shall not be effected on the basis of allegations, unless the allegations are prima facie found to be true by a preliminary enquiry and it is decided by the transferring authority that the continuance of the officer in the same station is injurious to public interest and that he can be transferred rather than suspended from service. When such transfers on complaints / allegations are made after preliminary enquiry, it should be followed up by a detailed investigation and disciplinary action instituted on allegations finally found to be substantiated”. 12. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the decision in Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and others [ (2009) 8 SCC 337 ], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that in the matter of transferring Government employees, the scope of judicial review is limited and the High Courts should not interfere with an order of transfer lightly. 13. 13. Further, in State of U.P and others vs. Siya Ram and others [ (2004) 7 SCC 405 ], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. 14. In Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others [CDJ 2008 SC 2162], the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: “19. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law. 20. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal. ... ... 25. No vigilance enquiry was initiated against him. The order of transfer was passed on material which was not existent. The order, therefore, not only suffers from total non application of mind on the part of authorities of respondent No.1, but also suffers from malice in law. 26. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must consider the fact of each case. Mechanical application of the normal rule "no work no pay" may in a case of this nature, be found to be wholly unjust. 26. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must consider the fact of each case. Mechanical application of the normal rule "no work no pay" may in a case of this nature, be found to be wholly unjust. No absolute proposition of law in this behalf can be laid down.” ...... ...... 28. In view of the above settled legal position, this Court is of the opinion that when transfers are effected after preliminary enquiry on the complaints / allegations, it should necessarily be followed up by a detailed investigation and disciplinary proceedings initiated on the allegations resultantly found to be substantiated. However, in the present case, prima facie it is found that disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memos were issued only when the matter was taken up for hearing that too after the matter was being adjourned on several occasions, which is contrary to the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.10,dated 07.01.1994 and the clarificatory letter dated 09.08.1994.Even on perusal of the impugned transfer orders, it is seen that the same were passed on the administrative grounds, however, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that based on the discreet enquiry report, the impugned transfer orders were passed. Further, according to the respondents, the impugned transfer orders were passed to avoid more complications in the prison administration. That apart, the respondents have not initiated disciplinary proceedings immediately after the incident had taken place and only in the month of September,2021, by way of filing additional. counter affidavit, it was brought to the notice of this Court that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for the incident alleged to have been taken place in the month of April, 2021 and in the counter affidavit filed in the month of August, 2021, there is no whisper about the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and only after the matter was taken up for hearing, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memos were issued to the petitioner. Hence, this Court comes to a conclusion that the impugned transfer orders are punitive in nature and there is violation of the principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents and therefore, the respondents have not followed the clarification order issued by the Government and the decision in the case of Elumalai's case (supra) would therefore squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice as observed in the aforesaid decision. Hence, for all these reasons, the impugned transfer orders are liable to be set aside'' 15. The factum as stated in Somesh Tiwari case supra, prima facie it is found that disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memos were issued only after the matter was taken up for hearing that too after the matter was being adjourned on several occasions. Whereas in the case in hand, departmental proceedings, Vigilance enquiry were already initiated against the petitioner and in one case enquiry report also filed and that apart, criminal case also pending against the petitioner. In Somesh Tiwari's case (supra), the Honourable Apex Court has held that, ''Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Further, in the aforesaid case, it was held that, ''No vigilance enquiry was initiated against him. The order of transfer was passed on material which was not existent. The order, therefore, not only suffers from total non application of mind on the part of authorities of respondent No.1, but also suffers from malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. In Somesh Tiwari's case (supra), it is further held that, “The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must consider the fact of each case. Mechanical application of the normal rule "no work no pay" may in a case of this nature, be found to be wholly unjust. In Somesh Tiwari's case (supra), it is further held that, “The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must consider the fact of each case. Mechanical application of the normal rule "no work no pay" may in a case of this nature, be found to be wholly unjust. No absolute proposition of law in this behalf can be laid down.” Therefore, the factual background in the instant case is entirely different from the decisions cited supra. 16. Taking note of catena of decisions of the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court, this Court is of the view that Court must consider the facts and circumstance of each case and come to the conclusion that the impugned transfer order being passed with malafide intention or not. Unless it is proved that the impugned transfer order is passed with malafide intention or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Court cannot interfere with the transfer order. 17. Therefore, taking note of the decisions cited supra, this Court cannot lost sight of the fact that disciplinary proceedings and vigilance enquiry are pending against the petitioner, that apart, criminal case also pending against the petitioner, which necessitated the respondent to pass the impugned transfer order to enable the Investigating authority to conduct free and fair enquiry, on the serious allegations levelled against the writ petitioner. Therefore, the impugned transfer order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings No.Ser7(1)/7478/2021 dated 06.08.2021 is not a punitive in nature and as such, there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. W.M.P.No.505 of 2022 stands allowed and consequently, W.M.P.No.18164 of 2021 stands dismissed. W.M.P.No.19157 of 2021 and 8136 of 2022 are closed.