JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1962/2022/A4 dated 27.05.2022 and consequential order issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.0569/2022/C1 dated 03.06.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to the post of Sanitary Worker in Edappadi Municipality.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1962/2022/A4 dated 27.05.2022 and consequential order issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.0569/2022/C1 dated 03.06.2022 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to the post of Sanitary Worker in Edappadi Municipality. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Worker temporarily in the 2nd respondent office vide order in Na.Ka.No.2539/97C1, dated 04.06.1998. Subsequently, his service was regularised. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent without issuing/serving the transfer order to the petitioner, he was issued relieving order in Na.Ka.No.0569/2022/C1, dated 03.06.2022 by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, he was transferred to Attur Municipality. The petitioner made a request to cancel his transfer order. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has served the transfer order passed by the 1st respondent dated 27.05.2022 to the petitioner only on 04.07.2022. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court for the aforesaid prayer. 3. According to the respondents, based on the complaint received by the 2nd respondent, a memo was served to the petitioner by the Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.0475/2022/C1, dated 12.04.2022 seeking explanation for the same. Thereafter, the impugned transfer order has been passed and subsequently, on the request of the petitioner, he was transferred to Mettur Municipality by the 1st respondent by his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1962/2022/A4, dated 13.06.2022 and a copy of the said order has been enclosed in the additional typed~set of papers filed by the 1st respondent. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st and 3rd respondents undertakes that the 1st respondent would serve the said revised transfer order dated 13.06.2022 to the petitioner by registered post, without any delay. 5. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st and 3rd respondents undertakes that the 1st respondent would serve the said revised transfer order dated 13.06.2022 to the petitioner by registered post, without any delay. 5. It is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court made in W.P.(MD) Nos.10759 of 2021 & 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”. 6. 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. 7. 7. 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. 8. 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-- 9. Based on the complaint, a memo was issued to the petitioner seeking for explanation and the 1st respondent has passed the impugned transfer order for better administration of the Department. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decisions as well as the instructions of the Government, the 2nd respondent has proceeded with the said complaint and therefore, it requires for transfer of the petitioner on the administrative reasons. 10. In such circumstances, this Court is not interfere with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent and there is no merit in the writ petition. 11. In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.