AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.04.2006 made in Writ Petition No. 9685 of 2006, the writ
petitioner K. Swaminathan, Conductor of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Erode District has filed the above appeal.
Even at the admission stage, the respondents are represented by a counsel.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant by pointing out the reasoning of the learned Judge, particularly in para 4 of the order dated 20.04.2006,
contended that since the impugned transfer order was passed as a vindictive measure, which is evident from the file produced before the learned
Judge, the order cannot be sustained. He also contended that the appellant joined Nambiyur Branch in the year 2004 and several persons, who
joined and working at Nambiyur Branch have not been transferred. He further pointed out that nearly 20 vacancies are there in Nambiyur Branch
itself and there is no necessity to pass the impugned order of transfer.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation by drawing our attention to the impugned order of transfer
contended that the same was passed due to administrative reasons and there is no ground for interference.
We verified the order of transfer, which is available at page 6 of the typed set of papers. It simply says that the appellant K. Swaminathan,
Conductor was transferred from Nambiyur Branch to Palani Branch due to administrative reasons. It is not in dispute that if the employer makes
transfer on administrative grounds, in the absence of any mala fide, there cannot be any interference in the said order. However, as rightly pointed
out, the file relating to the order of transfer, which was placed before the learned Judge shows that on 24.03.2006, the appellant, who is a
Conductor and the driver of the vehicle bearing No. TN.33/N 1994 did not stop the vehicle at the bus-stop meant for the same, which resulted in
stopping the vehicle by the public and there was altercation between the petitioner, driver and the public. It further shows that with reference to the
same, the Corporation has initiated action by issuing notice by way of separate proceedings. The details mentioned in para 4 of the order dated
20.0 4.2006 amply show that the present order of transfer cannot be construed as an order simplicitor or due to administrative reasons. In such
circumstances, without affording an opportunity to the appellant, the order can not stand. Without going into the proposed action to be taken
against him with reference to the incident said to have taken place on 24.03.2006, the order of transfer dated 29.03.2006 is quashed. It is made
clear that the Transport Corporation is free to pursue their Departmental proceedings, if they so desire in accordance with law by affording
opportunity to the appellant.
With the above observation, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WAMP., is closed.