Madras High CourtWP(MD)/496/2018allowed

K.Jeyapandiammal, v. The Tamil Nadu Generation And

2018-01-10Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.01.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD) No.496 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.497 & 498 of 2018 K.Jeyapandiammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Represented by its Chief Engineer (Personnel), 144, Anna Salai, Chennai.

2. The Chief Engineer/Distribution, The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), K.Pudur, Madurai.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Ramanathapuram.

4. The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Paramakudi Division, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

5. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance/Rural/ Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution, Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Paramakudi-623 707.

6. S.Sirajudeen, The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance/Rural/ The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO), Paramakudi -623 707.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned transfer passed by the third respondent Ref Memo No.011412/Ado/Adm.1/A1/F.Trs./2017 dated 23.12.2017 and consequential order of the fifth respondent in Memo No.AEE/R1/PMK/F.DOC/D.No.014/17 dated 06.01.2018, quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan Standing Counsel ****

ORDER

Heard Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Dhayalan, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2.By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3.The petitioner questions the impugned order of transfer. The third respondent had stated in the impugned order that the petitioner is transferred on administrative grounds and on adverse remarks. Since the order is on the face of it stigmatic and has been issued without putting the petitioner on notice, it is liable to be set aside.

4.The impugned transfer order passed by the third respondent Ref Memo No.011412/Ado/Adm.1/A1/F.Trs./2017 dated 23.12.2017 and consequential order of the fifth respondent in Memo No.AEE/R1/PMK/F.DOC/D.No.014/17 dated 06.01.2018 are quashed. 4.It is however made clear that it is open to the third respondent to issue a fresh order which does not cause any stigma on the writ petitioner. It is made clear that all the other contentions made in the Writ Petition is left open. 5.The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar