IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 11445 of 2009 Between: Sakeena Sultana W/o. M.A. Qadeer, O/o. Chief Engineer / Mechanical, AP TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Managing Director (HRD, Comml. IPC & IT), APTRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 A. Seshagiri W/o. Not known O/o. Chief Engineer / TL &SS, AP TRANSCO, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i) declare Memo No.Addl.Secy./DS(Estt.)/AS(Estt.)/PO(Estt-I)/J2/1220/09-2, dt. 9.6.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same. ii) consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to continue the petitioner in the present station i.e., Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. iii) and pass Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P. NO.11445 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a Personal Officer (Canteen and Protocol) Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, calling in question the validity of the orders passed on 09th June, 2009 by the Joint Managing Director of the A.P. Transco subjecting her to a transfer to the control of the Chief Engineer at Warangal where the 3rd respondent was working and posted the 3rd respondent in place of the writ petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner came to be promoted as a Personal Officer by virtue of her superior merit on 22-12-2006 and hence she has not completed three years of service, by the time the A.P. Transco has undertaken the exercise of subjecting its employees to a round of administrative transfers normally undertaken during the summer recess of Educational Institutions. It was pointed out that, to regulate its exercise and to cut out the elements of discretion involved in such matters, a well-chiseled guidelines have been framed and they have been announced on 30th May, 2009. The case of the writ petitioner does not fall within the parameters specified in those guidelines requiring her to be transferred. The respondents appear to have undertaken the exercise of administrative transfers on 08th June, 2009 by subjecting the eligible candidates to a process of counseling. However, the writ petitioner is not one such person who has been asked to participate in the counseling exercise undertaken on 08th June, 2009. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the 3rd respondent was promoted as a Personal Officer as lately as on 26-11-2008 but however, with a view to bring her to Hyderabad, the present exercise has been carried out by transferring the writ petitioner to Warangal in place of 3rd respondent and bringing the 3rd respondent in her place. Hence, the writ petitioner challenged the orders passed on 09th June, 2009 as a punitive measure and as a result of extraneous considerations. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after her promotion as a Personal Officer she has struggled and strained hard to reform the functioning of the canteen. As a result of her hard work, there is a turn around achieved not only in the quality of the services rendered therein but also by generating higher amounts of revenue. It is further asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petitioner has got the accounts of the canteen audited internally only during November, 2008 and it is not found any serious lapses therein and hence the allegation that there are serious irregularities committed in the affairs of the canteen, is a theory invented for offering a justifiable base for the impugned order of transfer which otherwise lacks bona-fides. 2. I have heard Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Bala Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the corporation and Sri M.S. Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Sri P. Bala Rami Reddy, learned standing counsel submits that in normal circumstances, the case of the writ petitioner would not have been taken up for subjecting her to a transfer because she has not yet completed three years of service and stay as a Personal Officer at Hyderabad but, however there was a necessity to have a fresh look at the affairs of the canteen, prompted all due to a complaint received alleging certain irregularities in its affairs. Learned standing counsel has placed before me a preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Information cell, A.P. Transco, Hyderabad on 08th June, 2009 listing out the various infirmities noticed by him. The Vigilance Inspector has found that the writ petitioner who was required to maintain appropriately the books of accounts, has maintained only the Cash Register, but failed to maintain rest of the books of accounts and it was in fact so observed by the internal auditors also. The report also contained certain other material warranting a serious look to be given to the financial affairs of the Canteen. Now, all this material has been brought to the notice of the Joint Managing Director of the A.P. Transco on 08th June, 2009, and hence the present order of transfer has been effected, more with a view to secure a fair inquiry into the matter. 3. It is not an uncommon feature for an employer to transfer its employees to far off places to enable easy collection of material against such an employee and also to prevent further access of such an employee to the records and witnesses who may be willing to speak against such an employee. This apart, transferability of employees from one place to another is a pure incidence of service, in case the employer has more offices/establishments situated at various places under it’s administrative control. It is a purely administrative exercise, no consequences much less grave ones will follow there from. The conditions of the services will not be altered by subjecting the employee to an order of transfer. 4. I, therefore do not find any merit in the present writ petition though the allegation has been made in the writ petition that it is for purposes of accommodating the interests of the 3rd respondent that the writ petitioner has been transferred, which allegation to my mind does not carry any conviction, in view of what has been laid bare above. 5. For these reasons, I do not find that a case is made out for interference and the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. JULY 06, 2009. Dsh.