THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.17030 OF 2000 Dated:24.08.2011 Between: D.Satyanarayana .. Petitioner And The Sub Divisional Inspector (Posts), Macherla Sub Division, Narsaraopet Postal Division, Guntur District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.17030 OF 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a Postman. He was transferred from Chilakaluripet to Macherla. Aggrieved by the transfer order, dated 14.12.1997, he filed O.A.No.170 of 1998 contending that the transfer is punitive and unsustainable. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. on 07.04.1998 directing the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.1997. In obedience thereto, the third respondent passed orders on 01.07.1998. The same reads as under. Department of Posts – India O/o the Postmaster-General Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada 520 002. Memo No.LC/VJ/15/98 dated at Vijayawada 520 002 the 01.07.98. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This is regarding transfer of Sri D.Satyanarayana Postman from Chilakaluripet HO to Macherla Sub Division in Narasaraopet Division. This has reference to the Judgment dated 07.04.98 of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the O.A.No.170/98 filed by Sri D.Satyanarayana here in after called the applicant of the O.A. In pursuance of the Judgement dated 07.04.98, I have examined comprehensively all the facts relating to the issue of transfer of the applicant of the O.A. from Chilakaluripet HO to Macherla Sub Division. After carefully going through the entire case, I feel that the ends of justice and public interest will be well served by ordering his re-transfer to Chilakaluripet town without T.A/T.P whenever a vacancy occurs, after the expiry of three years from the date of transfer of the applicant of the O.A. out of Chilakaluripet town, provided his work and conduct are satisfactory during this period. Sd/- D.Kailasa Prasad, Postmaster General, Vijayawada 520 002. Assailing the same, the petitioner again filed O.A.No.884 of 1999. By impugned order dated 29.05.2000, the learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (the Rules), a regular departmental enquiry was conducted into the charge that the petitioner failed to maintain devotion to duty as required under Rule 3(i)(ii) of the Rules citing eight incidents of non- payment of money orders to a society between December 1995 to January 1996. The disciplinary enquiry resulted in imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. He would further contend that the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent and while the same was pending for the same charge, he was transferred from Chilakaluripet to Macherla. He would also contend that when the transfer order is challenged before the Tribunal in O.A.No.170 of 1998, the same was disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. The third respondent instead of considering the same with reference to the charges framed by the Tribunal passed a brief order directing his retransfer from Chilakaluripet. According to the counsel for the petitioner it is illegal and arbitrary. The respondents filed a detailed reply statement in September, 2000. Even by that date, the second respondent allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 20.01.1998 and remitted the matter to the first respondent for enquiry. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that no such enquiry has been conducted for the last 13 years. In the reply statement, a stand has been taken that a fresh enquiry could not be initiated as the case was pending before the Vigilance. Now, the Assistant Solicitor General submits that in all probability, enquiries against the petitioner are dropped. He also admits that the order of the third respondent dated 01.07.1998 has not been given effect to. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider the transfer of the petitioner from Macherla to Chilakaluripet as directed by the third respondent in order dated 01.07.1998 immediately. This direction would sub-serve the ends of justice. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 24.08.2011 KH