Sri. B. Madhusudan Sri v. Union Of India Through

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition No.7256 of 2012 Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, refusing to interfere with an order of transfer.

2. We have heard Mr. B.Madhusudan, petitioner appearing in person, Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Siva, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

3. The petitioner was working as Senior Audit Officer in the office of the Principal Director of Commercial Audit, Hyderabad.

It appears that he was transferred on 08-1202008 to Gwalior and he challenged it in O.A.No.44 of 2009. The Tribunal allowed the application, but the same became the subject of a writ petition before this Court. But the said writ petition appears to have been withdrawn.

4. Subsequently, by an order dated 14-12-2011, the petitioner was transferred to Mumbai. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an application in O.A.No.1294 of 2011 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 29-02-2012. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

5. Though Mr. B.Madhusudan, petitioner appearing in person, has filed volumes and volumes of papers, challenging the orders of transfer on the ground of mala fides, violation of Government Orders etc, and though he made elaborate submissions contending that he has raised as many as 40 grounds, we do not think that we need to go into all those issues. This is on account of a subsequent development that has taken place.

6. According to the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, the petitioner was proceeded with departmentally on the ground that he did not join duty at the transferred place and also on the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent. Eventually, the Disciplinary Authority seems to have passed an order dated 30-8-2016 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement.

7. In view of the above subsequent development, no purpose will be served in testing the order of transfer in the present writ petition. The present writ petition has actually become infructuous.

Hence, it is dismissed.

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.

___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

______________________ G.SHYAM PRASAD, J.

December, 2016.

Ak

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition No.7256 of 2012 (per VRS, J.) December, 2016.

(Ak)