IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 24.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. M.Y.EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.A. NO. 1347 OF 2010 Dr. S.Raja Soundarapandian .. Appellant - Vs - 1. The Principal Secretary Higher Education Department Secretariat Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Director Government College of Education College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3. The Principal Government College of Education Vellore. .. Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order dated 7th June, 2010, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.10777 of 2010. W.P.No.10777/2010 Petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.11713/C2/2010 dated 07.05.2010 and quash the same as illegal. For Appellant :Mr. S.Parthasarathy For Respondents :Mr. G.Sankaran, Spl. G.P. (Education) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th June, 2010, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.10777 of 2010, the appellant/writ petitioner has preferred this writ appeal. 2. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer in 2007 and at the relevant point of time, he was in-charge Principal of the Government College of Education, Orathanadu. It appears that a complaint was made by the students of the College about the sexual harassment against the Director of Physical Education. An enquiry was conducted by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education (Project & Development), Chennai and the charges were found genuine and true. During the enquiry it was revealed that on the complaint that had been lodged by the students, the appellant, who was the in-charge Principal of the College did not take any action. Hence, considering the exigency of the situation and for the smooth functioning of the College, the appellant was transferred as Assistant English Professor, Vellore. The appellant challenged the said order by filing the aforementioned writ petition. 3. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, relevant portion of the order passed by learned single Judge reads as under :- “3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that some complaints were made by the students undergoing Tamil Teacher’s Training against the Director of Physical Education by name K.Padmanabhan. Action has also been initiated against K.Padmanabhan. While recording the above fact, the second respondent has incidentally stated that the petitioner was also considered responsible and that therefore, to restore a congenial atmosphere in the college it is necessary to transfer the petitioner for administrative reasons. Hence, such an order of transfer cannot be considered to be an order passed on allegations or a punitive order of transfer. The predominant purpose of the impugned order of transfer is to restore normalcy in the functioning of the College and not really to sigmatize the petitioner. What is important in such cases is to see, whether the motive behind the order was the allegations or the reason to restore normal functioning. Looked at from that angle, it is clear that the impugned order cannot be taken to be one on allegations or punitive in nature. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned order of transfer as being illegal and violative of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ principles of natural justice. The main contention of the appellant is that the impugned order of transfer casts a stigma and is punitive and, hence, the principles of natural justice ought to be followed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is a transfer simplicitor, which is only to pacify the students and to ensure smooth functioning of the college. It is not a punitive transfer or stigmatic. 5. We have perused the order of transfer, which reveals that the appellant has been transferred only on the ground of administrative exigency and to ensure that a smooth situation prevails in the college. In our opinion also, the impugned order of transfer cannot be held to be punitive or stigmatic one. 6. It is well settled that if the order of transfer does not involve any adverse impact or visit the person concerned with any penal consequences, the question of holding an enquiry or complying the requirements of natural justice does not arise. While considering a similar point, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. – Vs – Janardhan Debanath & Anr. (2004 (4) SCC 245), observed as under :- 12. That brings us to the other question as to whether the use of the expression 'undesirable' warranted an enquiry before the transfer. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the respondents on a decision of this Court in Jagdish Mitter v. The Union of India (1964) I LLJ 418 (SC) to contend that whenever there is a use of the word 'undesirable' it casts a stigma and it cannot be done without holding a regular enquiry. The submission is clearly without substance. The said case relates to use of the expression 'undesirable' in an order affecting the continuance in service by way of discharge. The decision has therefore no application to the facts of the present case. The manner, nature an extent of exercise to be undertaken by Courts/Tribunals in a case to adjudge whether it casts a stigma or constitutes one by way of punishment would also very much depend upon the consequences flowing from the order and as to whether it adversely affected any service conditions - status, service prospects financially and same yardstick, norms or standards cannot be applied to all category of cases. Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visits the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration.” 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, we do not find any error in the impugned order of transfer or the impugned judgment passed by learned single Judge. There being no merit, this writ appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar GLN To 1. The Principal Secretary Higher Education Department Secretariat Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Director Government College of Education College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3. The Principal Government College of Education Vellore. 1 cc To Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate, SR.13326 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.13404 W.A. NO. 1347 OF 2010 jrg(co) pmk.17.3.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/