APSRTC, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and other vs C.V. Reddi

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, CJ

The appeal is directed against setting aside an order of transfer of the writ petitioner issued by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation.

The contextual facts reveal that the writ petitioner was transferred from Cuddapah to Anantapur and the same was assailed before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge while dealing with the matter, placed very strong reliance on paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Road Transport Corporation. For convenience sake, the said paragraph 4 is set out hereunder:

"I submit that the 1st respondent received a complaint on 18-9-1997 from Security staff, Zonal Workshop, Cuddapah against Alexander SASI and Sri C. Venkat Reddy SHG regarding the allegation of theft of materials/pilferage of scrap items/tyres and allowing the scrap dealers to take serviceable materials and accepting bribes from the successful bidders. Based on the complaint, the third respondent conducted a preliminary enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner and found that due to the long standing at Zonal Workshop and he has been indulging in unlawful acts like consuming liquors while on duty and as such the enquiry offer suggested to transfer the petitioner from Zonal Workshop, Cuddapah to any other place in the interest of maintaining the discipline in the workshop. Since the petitioner found long standing at Zonal Workshop, Cuddapah and based on an enquiry report he was transferred to Anantapur Depot on administrative grounds. Hence, the transfer orders issued by the respondent-Corporation on administrative grounds is valid and just and there is no bar to transfer an employee even in the middle of academic year basing on complaints or on administrative grounds and it is also pertinent to state that there is no need to give any prior intimation to the petitioner before he is transferred.''''

It is on this factual background that the learned single Judge came to a conclusion that the writ petitioner cannot be transferred by attaching stigma and the learned Judge relied on a judgment of this Court in J. Ravinder v. Regional Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar 1994 (2) APLJ 225, and as such, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of transfer and hence the appeal.

The principal contention advanced in support of the appeal is that since the transfer is an incidence of service and since the transfer has been effected simply on administrative grounds, question of the writ Court having jurisdiction to interfere with the same does not and cannot arise and the learned single Judge, it has been contended, was clearly in error in quashing the order of transfer. The learned Advocate for the respondent-writ petitioner, however, very strongly contended, as was done before the learned single Judge, that the order of transfer cannot be termed to be merely an administrative order, but a stigma is attached and as such, the learned single Judge was otherwise justified in the contextual facts to pass the order as has been done in the matter.

We are, however, unable to see any stigma being attached to the writ petitioner. No disciplinary proceeding has been initiated neither there is penalty imposed. The respondent-authorities in their administrative capacity wanted a particular employee to be posted to Anantapur from Cuddapah and the question of there being any stigma attached to the order of transfer does not arise at all.

The learned Advocate for the respondent-writ petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, , wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment recorded as follows:

"In view of the unimpeachable and eloquent testimony of the performance of the duties, it will be obvious that the transfer is not in public interest but is a case of victimisation of an honest officer at the behest of the aggrieved complainants carrying on the business in liquor and toddy. Under these circumstances, as stated earlier, the transfer of the appellant is nothing but mala fide exercise of the power to demoralise honest officers who would efficiently discharge the duties of public office."

The judgment, in our view, however, does not lend any asisstance since there is no testimony far less eloquent testimony of the performance of the duties of the writ petitioner. On the contrary, if testimony is an indicative factor herein, it runs counter to the observations of the Supreme Court. Transfer on administrative grounds is not unknown and in the event of the authority being satisfied of the factum of non-suitability of a particular employee at a particular place, then, it is the prerogative of the authority to transfer such employee to some other place and in such an event, the question of interference by the writ Court, in our view, is wholly unwarranted. In that view of the matter, we have not been able to appreciate the judgment of the learned single Judge in the contextual facts of the matter under consideration. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the writ appeal is allowed.

The writ petitioner-respondent is directed to go to the transferred place and report for duty at Anantapur by the end of May, 1998.