Balaji.R v. The Management Of Tamil Nadu State Transport

1 W.P.(MD)NO.11193 OF 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.09.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)Nos.11193 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7997, 7998 & 11258 of 2022 R.Balaji, S/o.Ramar, Assistant Engineer, Staff No.31567, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Virudhunagar Region, Residing at:

5-18-48, Postal Colony, Madurai Road, Palayampatti, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

... Petitioner in both petitions Vs.

1. The Mangement of Tamil Nadu State Transport Rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai.

2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar.

3. The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Aruppukottai Branch, Aruppukottai.

1/5

2 W.P.(MD)NO.11193 OF 2022

4. Arumugam, The Managing Director, The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Madurai.

5. S.Nagaraj, The Branch Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Aruppukottai Branch, Aruppukottai.

... Respondents in both petitions Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent in Ref.No.094/CA2/HRD/TNSTC/MDU/2022 dated 02.06.2022 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, Standing Counsel.

* * *

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2/5

3 W.P.(MD)NO.11193 OF 2022

2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the impugned transfer order is punitive in nature and that therefore it has to be set aside.

3. He pointed out that the impugned transfer order was preceded by an order of suspension and also by the issuance of charge memo. This Court had already quashed the suspension order as well as the charge memo. Therefore, he called upon this Court to quash the impugned transfer order and allow this writ petition.

4. I am not impressed by the said contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. As rightly contended by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the corporation, the petitioner had served in Virudhunagar Region for more than six years and he had been transferred only to Madurai which is at a distance of 50 kms. from Virudhunagar. He also pointed out that on the same date quite a few other officials of the same region were also transferred. Their transfer orders have also been placed 3/5

4 W.P.(MD)NO.11193 OF 2022 before me. Though the immediate background to the transfer order may suggest that it is punitive in nature, I am satisfied that it is in routine course. No case for interference has been made out. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 13.09.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU To:

1. The Mangement of Tamil Nadu State Transport Rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai.

2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar.

3. The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Aruppukottai Branch, Aruppukottai.

4/5

5 W.P.(MD)NO.11193 OF 2022 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

PMU W.P.(MD)No.11193 of 2022 13.09.2022 5/5

6 W.P.(MD)NO.11193 OF 2022 6/5