S.A. Syed Hussain v. The Director Of Muncipal

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.08.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.6271 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 S.A.Syed Hussain ... Petitioner -Vs1.The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

2.The Commissioner of Rajapalayam, Municipality at Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

3.S.Venkateswaran ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 made in Roc.No.35111/2014/K1, dated 10.04.2015 the first respondent herein and quash the same insofar with respect to the petitioner herein is concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Athimoolapandiyan For R1 : Mr.K.Mu.Muthu, Additional Government Pleader.

For R2 : Mr.P.Alagusundaram For R3 : Mr.J.Ashok, For M/s.Jeyapaul Associates.

ORDER

The order of transfer, transferring the writ petitioner from Rajapalayam to Aruppukottai, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2.The writ petitioner was working as Assistant and the order 1/4

of transfer was issued on administrative grounds. Several employees were transferred in the impugned order dated 10.04.2015. The writ petitioner was transferred from Rajapalayam to Aruppukottai as Manager. The order of transfer states that the transfers are effected on administrative grounds.

3.Undoubtedly, punitive transfers are bad in law. However, the Court has to examine, whether such transfers are genuinely punitive or not. A mere complaint resulted in transfer, would not amount to punitive transfer. This apart, in certain circumstances, transfer is permissible in lieu of an order of suspension. Thus, all transfers, which all are issued on certain complaints from the public or otherwise, cannot be construed as punitive transfers. Those transfers or complaints are to be construed as administrative transfers. Administrative transfers are issued in order to maintain effective and effective public administration.

If this official in a particular post is not conducive to carry on public affairs and on receipt of such complaints from the public, the authorities competent are empowered to issue transfer orders in the interest of public administration and to run the administration in a peaceful manner, so as to serve the public effectively. 4.This Court is of an opinion that transfers can be issued on various grounds. Transfers are imminent in respect of public servants, whenever a complaint against the employee, is made known to the competent authorities. In certain circumstances, there may not be an evidence to prosecute the employee or to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings.

However, the competent authorities may come to the conclusion that further continuance of a public servant in the particular place would cause inconvenience as well as cause some difficult situation for the peaceful functioning of the public administration. Thus, in those circumstances, transfers alone are the remedy in the interest of public administration. Therefore, it is not necessary that there must be a transfer only after conducting an enquiry or initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

5.Administrative transfers are issued on various circumstances and on various grounds. For instance, continuance of certain public servants in a particular post, may not be conducive for the peaceful administration or their further continuance may cause certain troubles to the people, who all are the beneficiaries in the Department. There are various such administrative aspects, which all are the reasons for the administrative transfers. Courts would not be in a position to scrutinize or conduct an enquiry in respect of those reasons for such issuance of the administrative transfers.

6.Administrative transfers are the prerogative of the Department concerned and the competent authorities are the best 2/4

persons to assess and act accordingly. However, those competent authorities should act in the interest of public and in the event of any illegality or some personal motive, then alone, the employee can approach the Court of law for appropriate remedy. In other words, if an order of transfer is issued with a mala fide intention or in violation of the statutory rules, then a writ petition can be entertained. Even in such cases, the allegation of mala fide intention must be substantiated in the writ proceedings and the official concerned must be impleaded as party respondents in the writ proceedings. In the absence of any such legal ground, routine administrative transfers can never be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts. Transfer is an incidental to service, more so, a condition of service. Public servant is liable to work wherever he is posted in the interest of public administration. On accepting the offer of appointment, a person is agreeing for the conditions of service and transfer being incidental, he must be in a position to work, wherever he is posted.

7.Place or post can never be claimed as a matter of choice by the public servants. All public servants are duty bound to perform their duties diligently and with utmost care and devotion. This being the basic principles to be followed and erosion in this regard can never be tolerated either by the officials or by the Courts. High Court cannot interfere with the routine administration of the State or its organization. In the event of such routine interference in administration, more specifically, in transfer cases, the very discipline and the functioning of the administration would be paralyzed. Thus, the judicial review of administrative transfers must be exercised with restraint and only on exceptional circumstances, such orders of transfers can be interfered with by the High Courts and not otherwise.

This being the scope of the judicial review of administrative transfers issued by the competent authorities, this Court is of an undoubted opinion that the writ petitioner has not established any such strong acceptable ground for the purpose of interference in the order of transfer. 8.The Government employees are entitled to enforce their legal rights ensured under the Act and statutory Rules. However, they are not entitled to claim right based on certain facilities and concessions shown by the Government by way of Government letters/instructions. The State, being the model employer, time and again providing certain concessions/ facilities for the welfare of its employees and to encourage them, so as to run the administration in an effective manner.

But those concessions/ facilities can never be a matter of legal right to the Government employees. The Constitutional Courts need not extend any consideration based on such facilities/instructions/guidelines extended by the Government in order to motivate the Government employees for running the State administration more effectively.

3/4

9.A mere forthcoming retirement or short tenure, cannot constitute a ground to attack the administrative orders of transfers. No doubt, certain difficulties may arise in the family of the Government servants in the event of an order of administrative transfer. But the interest of administration and the public interest alone are the paramount importance and this Court cannot extend any leniency to the Government employee on such pleadings of personal grievances. It is for the Competent Authorities to consider those grievances and even in case, such grievances are not considered by the original authority, it is left open to the Government employees to approach the higher authorities or the Government in this regard, but certainly not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10.This Court is of the firm opinion that administrative transfers can never to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This being the consistent view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the High Courts, no further consideration or adjudication needs to be entertained in this writ petition on the grounds raised in the affidavit. 11.Thus, the writ petitioner has not established any acceptable legal ground for the purpose of interference with the administrative order of transfer and accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

+1 CC to M/s.N. DILIP KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-82897[F] dated 22/08/2019 +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-83192[F] dated 22/08/2019 ) W.P.(MD)No.6271 of 2015 21.08.2019 Myr JMN(09.09.2019) 4P : 4C 4/4