Nagarajan v. The Inspector General Of Police (L And O)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA WP No. 9818 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 10584 OF 2026,WMP NO. 10583 OF 2026 Nagarajan S/o.Ramasamy (Late) No.1/9E, K.K.Nagar, 2nd Street, Vennampatti Road, Collectorate Post, Dharmapuri District- 636 705.
..Petitioner Vs
1. The Inspector General of Police (L and O) West Zone, Coimbatore.
2. The Superintendent of Police Dharmapuri District.
..Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders issued by the 2nd respondent in D.No.100/ 2026, C.No.A2/42/ 13029906/ 2026 dated 09.02.2026 and quash the same.
For Petitioner:
Mr.R.Rajendran for M/s.Dhineshkumar Associates For Respondents:
Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2
ORDER
Challenging the order transferring him at fag end of his career to Nilgiris District from Dharmapuri, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. The petitioner would submit that he was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable in the year 1988 and promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in 2002 and was subsequently promoted as Head Constable in the year 2012. The petitioner would submit that originally he served as Head Constable in Eriyur Police Station. On 28.10.2025, he was transferred to Indur Police Station, where he is serving now without any adverse remarks. To his shock and surprise, the petitioner received a fax message on 24.02.2026, stating that he was transferred to Nilgiris District, on administrative grounds, with immediate effect. The petitioner would submit that this transfer has been effected within four months of his joining the present station.
3. It is his contention that he has to take care of his aged mother and his wife, who had undergone major surgeries. He is the only person to take care of them and transferring him to a distant station, would cause hardship
not only to the petitioner but also his family members. The petitioner already suffers from bronchitis and posting him in a place of a higher altitude, is not conducive for his health. Therefore, challenging his transfer, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4.1 The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, in which, apart from denying the various allegations in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the respondents has set out a series of aberrations on the part of the petitioner and the consequential orders passed by the Competent Authority imposing punishments on the petitioner. 4.2 In all, in between 1988 when he joined the services till as late as 21.08.2025, the petitioner has had around 16 disciplinary proceedings against him.
The respondents would submit that on account of his demeanour, the petitioner was transferred out of Dharmapuri District and posted at Nilgiris District in the year 2011, and after five years, he was again transferred to Dharmapuri District based on his request. Even after providing an opportunity, the petitioner has not changed and continued in acts of misconduct viz., irregularly attending duties, disobeying his superior officers' instructions etc.
Therefore, he was again transferred back to Nilgiris District, on administrative grounds vide impugned order. The respondents would further submit that the petitioner's transfer is purely on administrative grounds. Hence, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before this Court.
6. The petitioner is aged 59 years and he is in the verge of his retirement. Admittedly, the petitioner had been transferred to Indur Police Station in Dharmapuri District on 28.10.2025. Within four months of taking charge at Indur Police Station, the petitioner has now been transferred to Nilgiris District vide impugned order dated 09.02.2016. Though the order impugned would read that the petitioner's transfer is on administrative reasons, however, a perusal of the counter affidavit would clearly indicate that the petitioner did not have a good rapport with his officials and he had also been subjected to simple punishments several times earlier. Therefore, his present
transfer within a shortest period, appears to be punitive in nature. It clearly proves that this is a tool which has been taken by the respondents to punish the petitioner yet again. The police personnel are usually entitled to a minimum tenure of two years for transfer. Therefore, the transfer appears to be pre-mature. Further, in case of premature transfer, the transfer orders requires recording specific reasons for transfer, but the impugned order is bereft of details and it only directs the transfer to take ''immediate effect" without granting any reasonable time to the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the alleged transfer is malafide and it cannot be sustained.
7. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order issued by the second respondent in D.No.100/2026 - C.No.A2 /42/ 13029906 / 2026 dated 09.02.2026 is hereby quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25-03-2026 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order DS
To:
1. The Inspector General of Police (L and O) West Zone, Coimbatore.
2. The Superintendent of Police Dharmapuri District.
P.T.ASHA, J., DS W.P.No.9818 of 2026 25-03-2026