1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.5918 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 K.V.R.Kalaimohan, S/o.K.V.Ramachandram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti Sub-Division, Madurai District, (Under orders of transfer to Madurai and on joining time), Madurai District. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. : 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 entire records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent relating to the order in C.No.A1/26277/2011 (CPO No.820/2011) dated 01.06.2011 and to quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned, and to issue consequential direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to serve in any posting in Madurai City. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the order of transfer dated 01.06.2011 of the second respondent, transferring him as Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCRB at Nagapattinam District from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Town Crime, Madurai City. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. The case of the petitioner is that originally he was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam Sub Division, Theni District. By proceeding dated 17.02.2011, he was transferred as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti Sub Division, Madurai District. He joined therein. While so, by an order dated 25.05.2011, he was transferred from Usilampatti to Town Crime, Madurai City as Assistant Commissioner of Police. Thereafter, by proceeding dated 01.06.2011 of the second respondent i.e., within seven days, he has been again transferred to Nagapattinam District as Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner, challenging the said order of transfer, has come up with the present Writ Petition. 3. A counter-affidavit was filed by the second respondent, stating that the first order of transfer dated 11.02.2011 was passed due to Tamil Nadu Assembly Election. After election, he has been transferred from Usilampatti to Madurai City. Since the petitioner did not join duty, again an order of transfer has been passed transferring the petitioner from Madurai City to Nagapattinam District as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Meanwhile, by an order dated 08.06.2011 of the first respondent, one R.Natarajan, who was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, SBCID Head Quarters, Chennai, was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Town Crime, Madurai City in the place of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner could not be accommodated in Madurai City. Thus, the counter- affidavit seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. The facts, which are not disputed, are that the petitioner, by an order of the first respondent, dated 11.02.2011, was transferred from Uthamapalayam Sub Division, Theni District to Usilampatti Sub Division, Madurai, as Deputy Superintendent of Police. After election, by an order of the first respondent dated 24.05.2011, the petitioner was again transferred from Usilampatti Sub Division to Madurai Town Crime, Madurai City as Assistant Commissioner of Police. The petitioner, admittedly, has some grace time to join duty. However, the first respondent, by his proceeding dated 31.05.2011, again transferred the petitioner to Nagapattinam District. It is not known why within a short span of time, viz., within seven days, the petitioner has been transferred from Madurai to Nagapattinam. The only reason that has been stated in the counter- affidavit is that the petitioner has not joined in the transferred place, viz., Madurai City. As stated already, the order of transfer was passed by the first respondent on 24.05.2011 and the petitioner has got time to join duty. However, without even waiting for the grace period, the first respondent, within seven days from the date of original order of transfer, again transferred the petitioner, by an order dated 31.05.2011, to Nagapattinam District. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 transferred to Nagapattinam only on the ground that he has not joined in the new post. 6. That apart, one another reason that has been stated in the counter-affidavit is that one R.Natarajan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SBCID Head Quarters, Chennai has been posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Town Crime, Madurai City in the place of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner could not be accommodated in Madurai. Even that reason cannot stand as on date, since the said R.Natarajan has been transferred to Ramanathapuram District, which has been stated even by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Thus, the second ground set out in the counter-affidavit no longer stands. 7. An order of transfer cannot be interfered by this Court, except on three grounds, viz., (i) if it is tainted with mala fide; (ii) if it is in violation of any statutory rules; (iii) if the authority, who has passed the order of transfer, has no jurisdiction to do so. 8. No doubt, in the present case on hand, none of the grounds exists. In normal circumstances, the order of transfer passed by the authorities cannot be interfered by this Court, exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, in the present case on hand, as stated already, the petitioner was transferred from Madurai City to Nagapattinam for the reasons set out earlier, which has been dealt with by me earlier. 9. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the order of transfer is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside and the Writ Petition, therefore, stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.19595) Order made in W.P.(MD)No.5918 of 2011 Dated: 21.06.2011 SML NSV/29.6.11/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/