1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.3400 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 M.Muthumuniyandi : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary/ Special Commissioner, ICDS, Tharamani, Chennai-600 113. 2.The Child Development Project Officer, Rajapalayam (urban), Virudhunagar District. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent herein in his proceeding in Proc.No.8029/E1-1/2010-2, dated 21.01.2011 and quash the same and further, direct the respondents herein to allow the petitioner herein to work in the second respondent office. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For Respondent No.1 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.N.Ilango ORDER ****** Challenging the order of transfer, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition. 2. Though it is stated in the order of transfer that the petitioner was transferred on administrative ground, in the counter- affidavit, it is stated that on complaint, the petitioner has been transferred. Though this Court cannot interfere with an order of transfer simplicitor, if an employee has been transferred on punitive ground or on adverse comments, the same can be entertained. Of course, there can be no impediment for transferring an official from one place to another place, purely on administrative grounds, for which no reason need be stated. This has been so held by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.309 of 2011, dated 03.03.2011, wherein the Division Bench has followed a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others reported in 2009 (2) SCC 592. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Supreme Court, in paragraph No.16, has held as follows: "16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and abased on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal." 3. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent dated 21.01.2011. Accordingly, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 21.01.2011 stands set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. SML Sd/- Deputy Registrar[Accounts] /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Secretary/Special Commissioner, ICDS, Tharamani, Chennai-600 113. 2.The Child Development Project Officer, Rajapalayam (urban), Virudhunagar District. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.18496. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.3400 of 2011 Dated:14.06.2011 2P/4C RPB 27.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/