M. Arulbalan v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 M.Arulbalan ... Petitioner -Vs1.The District Collector, 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 3.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

4.The Revenue Inspector, Pudupattinam Village, Thanjavur District.

5.The Village Administrative Officer, 79, Pudupattinam Village, ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the third respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4025/2012(A5), dated 19.07.2013 and quash the same as illegal and direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to work under the fifth respondent as per the order of transfer, dated 27.09.2012 in Na.Ka.No.31170/2012/A5.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arunprasad For Respondents: Mr.D.Muruganandham Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The order, dated 19.07.2013, transferring the writ petitioner to Pudhupattinam as Village Administrative Officer. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not performing his duties 1/3

and responsibilities and further interrupted the functioning of the Village Administrative Officer, Pudhupattinam, he was posted under the control of the Revenue Inspector and even in that post, he had not performed his duties and responsibilities. He remind unauthorisedly absent and submitted false informations to the higher authorities. At the outset, the petitioner disobeyed the order of transfer and caused inconvenience to the other officials and provided false informations to the higher authorities. 2.The petitioner remind unauthorisedly absent without joining duty. In other words, he deserted his duty and disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and a charge memo was issued in proceedings, dated 02.06.2018.

The disciplinary proceedings are now pending and the enquiry officer was appointed. 3.In view of the fact that the present writ petition is filed challenging the order of transfer, this Court of an opinion that no consideration is required as the impugned order was passed on 19.07.2013 and seven years lapsed. Transfer is an incidental to service and a condition to service. An employee is bound to work wherever, he is posted in the interests of public at large. An order of transfer can be challenged only on limited grounds. Even as per the Government policy, a Government Servant is eligible to continue in one post for a period of three years and thereafter, the competent authorities are empowered to transfer either on administrative grounds or on the ground of efficient administrative.

If at all any, personal grievance exists, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the higher authority and the Courts cannot interfere with the orders of transfer issued on administrative grounds. This being the principle to be followed, the present writ petition deserves no merit consideration and accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Sji To 1.The District Collector, 2/3

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 3.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

4.The Revenue Inspector, Pudupattinam Village, Thanjavur District.

5.The Village Administrative Officer, 79, Pudupattinam Village, +1 CC to SGP ( SR-25122[F] dated 11/12/2020 ) 09.12.2020 MJ (CO) NR (18/12/2020) 3P : 7C 3/3