G. Butchi Raju vs Non-conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. and Another

The petitioner, who is an Assistant Development Officer under the first respondent, was elected as Joint Secretary of the Union in 1988. There were certain demands by employee against the management, and in particular the Managing Director, Sri Bhaktavatsalam. In that context there were heated discussions in the chambers of the said Managing Director. However, the said disputes were compromised even according to the petitioner, at the intervention of a Member of the Legislature. The petitioner was thereafter transferred on 30th March 1989 to Adilabad.

The facts of this case are more or less similar to the facts of Writ Petition No. 5018 of 1989. It is clear that after the compromise with the previous Managing Director in his chambers in the presence of the local M.L.A. those disputes came to an end. Therefore, the disputes, if any which were prior to the said compromise dated 22nd December 1988, cannot be treated as having any bearing on the impugned order of transfer.

However, it is important to mention the following additional facts in this case. There were certain other allegations against the petitioner that one of his relations is having an industry, with the support of the petitioner in respect of Bio-gas and that the petitioner should have informed the management regarding the said fact in view of the Circular of AEDCAP, dated 23rd August 1986 laying down the guidelines relating to the conduct of the employees. The counter-affidavit reveals that this was one of the matters which the management considered while transferring the petitioner.

As stated by me in my today''s Judgment in W.P. No. 5018 of 1989, this Court has to examine whether the allegations were the motive or the foundation. If they are mere motive the transfer orders cannot be questioned. In the light of the decisions referred to by me in that judgment, the question is whether the transfer was made after the management was "satisfied" about the correctness of the allegations, or whether pending an "enquiry" into the said allegation the management wanted merely to transfer the petitioner. In my view, having regard to the facts of this case, the transfer was made not upon the satisfaction of the correctness of the enquiry but merely on the ground that a person with such allegations should be transferred before the management could arrive at any definite conclusions about these allegations. It is we settled that in such a situation, the management has an option either to suspend an officer or to transfer him. At that stage i.e. of there being only allegations, the management, even if it contemplates an enquiry in future, cannot be said to have passed an order by way of punishment. It is open to the management, before it is being satisfied about any allegations, either to suspend an officer or to transfer him. In such an event, the allegations are mere motive for the transfer and not the foundation. These principles can be gathered from the decisions referred to by me in Writ Petition 5018 of 1989 and in particular from the decision in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Others Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Others, and Vice Chancellor, Andhra University v. Venkata Ratnam 1977 Lab IC 1222.

For the aforesaid reasons, the transfer was clearly justified. I may also point out that merely because a person in an office-bearer, he cannot claim immunity from transfer if there are serious allegations of violation of the Conduct Rules, applicable to any industry or service. When there are allegations of violation of conduct Rules and a transfer is made by the management in respect of an officer, who may be an officer-bearer of a trade union, it is not open to this Court to exercise its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and interfere with such an order of transfer. If there is any interference, it will become impossible for the managements to take action, under the Conduct rules, against its employees, who are office-bearers of a trade union. I am also satisfied that the same reasons given by me in W.P. No. 5018 of 1989 that the transfer is not mala fide or based on extraneous reasons would equally apply to this case also.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.