P. Narasimhan vs The Director General, Highways Department

M. Jaichandren, J.�Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the respondent. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 24.6.2014, made in W.P. No. 16063 of 2014.

The appellant herein had filed the Writ Petition before this court, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the impugned order of the respondent, dated 21.5.2014, insofar as it relates to the appellant and to direct the respondent to transfer and post the appellant in the vacancy available, at Krishnagiri Rural Roads Section.

It had been stated that the appellant was formerly working as an Assistant Engineer. He had been transferred from Pennagaram (H) Section, with effect from 7.6.2012. The respondent, by his proceedings, dated 21-5-2014, had transferred the appellant to Tenkasi Project Section-1. Challenging the said order passed by the respondent, the appellant had preferred the Writ Petition before this Court. The learned single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition stating that the appellant had not produced any materials to show that the order of transfer issued by the respondent is contrary in nature. Even though the wife of the appellant is employed at Salem and his children are studying at Salem, such circumstances, cannot be considered as valid grounds for interfering with the order of transfer. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the learned single Judge had granted liberty to the appellant to make a representation to the respondent, to re-transfer him to a nearby place, taking into account the difficulties expressed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 24.6.2014, the appellant has preferred the present Writ Appeal before this court, raising several grounds.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the order of transfer issued by the respondent is mala fide in nature. The order of transfer passed by the respondent is only due to the reason that the appellant had raised certain issues, as an office bearer of the association, with regard to certain irregularities that had occurred in the administration of the department concerned. It had also been stated that the appellant had been posted, at Pennagaram, from 7.6.2012. As such, the appellant is entitled to stay at the said place for a period of three years thereafter.

It had also been stated that, under normal circumstances, the transfer orders are passed transferring persons, within a radius of 35-40 kilometers. However, the appellant had been transferred to a far off place, due to mala fide reasons. The fact that the transfer order had been passed with ulterior motives is clear from the circumstantial evidence available. In spite of the fact that the representation made by the appellant is pending disposal, he had been transferred by the impugned order passed by the respondent. The allegations made by the appellant had not been denied by the respondent, by filing a counter. In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned single Judge, rejecting the claims of the appellant, is unsustainable in the eye of law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the order of transfer had been passed by the respondent only on administrative grounds. There is no mala fide reasons for passing the said order, as alleged by the appellant. The respondent had only relied on the Government order, in G.O.(Ms.) No. 1813, Public Works Department, dated 29.8.1990, while passing the order of transfer. As such, the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 24.6.2014, made in W.P. No. 16063 of 2014. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 21.5.2014, with mala fide motives. It is noted from the records available before this court that certain other persons have also been transferred to far off places. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that transfer orders are passed, normally, posting the persons in places which are 35 to 40 kilometers is not acceptable. Unless it is shown clearly, with sufficient evidence, that the order of transfer passed by the respondent is mala fide in nature or without jurisdiction, this court would not, in normal circumstances, interfere with such an order, especially, when it is the specific stand of the respondent that the order of transfer passed by the respondent is due to administrative exigencies. As such, we are of the considered view that the present Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.S.R. petition is closed.