IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.8974 of 2011 A.Srinivasan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Engineer (Personal), TNEB, 8th Floor, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Administrative Branch, NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2.Superintending Engineer (O&M), TNEB, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Kancheepuram. 3.The Executive Engineer (O&M), TNEB, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. 4.The Assistant Engineer (O&M), TNEB, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Poondi, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of transfer passed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings in Memo No.024341/442/G42/G42(2)/2011-1, dated 19.03.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.A.Ramalingam For Respondents :Mr.B.Sekar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order of transfer passed by the first respondent, transferring the petitioner from the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondi, Thiruvallur, to the office of the Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle/South. 2. The petitioner, after joining as Assisting Helper in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Perunagar, Kancheepuram District, which is under the control of the second respondent, was promoted as Helper in the year 1995. Again, after two years, he was transferred and posted in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Rural Thiruvallur. Thereafter, in the year 2001, he was promoted as Wireman and continued to work in the same office. Whileso, by an order dated 26.02.2011, he was transferred from the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Rural Thiruvallur, to the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondi, Thiruvallur/fourth respondent herein. Therefore, in the light of the transfer order, he was relieved from service on 02.03.2011 and consequently joined the said office at Poondi. While he was working as Wireman in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondi, Thiruvallur District, which is under the control of the fourth respondent, once again, he was issued with transfer order, which is impugned in the present writ petition, by the first respondent, transferring and posting the petitioner to the Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle/South. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the impugned transfer order dated 19.03.2011 cannot be passed within three weeks from the earlier transfer order dated 26.02.2011. However, when the petitioner, on receiving frequent orders of transfer, made a representation to the respondents through proper channel on 31.03.2011, explaining his grievances and difficulties for joining duty at the above said circle office at Coimbatore, with a request to reconsider the impugned order of transfer, the respondents, without considering the bonafide request of the petitioner, directed him to join at Coimbatore Circle by issuing relieving order dated 31.03.2011. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present impugned transfer order dated 19.03.2011 passed within three weeks from the previous transfer order dated 26.02.2011, is not only arbitrary and unjust, but also illegal and malafide. Further, he has contended that while passing the impugned order, the first respondent failed to note that the petitioner is working under the respondent Board as a RWE (Regular Works Establishment) employee and the seniority for the said employee will be taken into account for next promotion for the post https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Line Inspector within the District Distribution Circle Level only and if the petitioner is transferred to some other District Distribution Circle, namely, the Coimbatore Circle, as directed in the impugned order, he would not only lose his seniority, but also affect his promotion by treating as junior most Wireman at Coimbatore Circle. 4. Further elaborating his argument, he pleaded that while passing the impugned order of transfer, the first respondent failed to consider that normally the transfer order will be passed only on completion of at least one year in the respective place, but, in the present case, the petitioner has not even completed one month in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondi, Thiruvallur District, therefore, the first respondent, with malafide intention, has passed the impugned order of transfer within three weeks from the earlier transfer order, only to accommodate the persons of their own choice in the guise of administrative reasons. With the aforesaid submissions, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that when the petitioner was working as Wireman in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondi, Thiruvallur District/fourth respondent herein, he has committed misconduct by extending the supply of metro water 24 hrs. feeder supply to some other selective consumers for the use in Domestic and Commercial services. When the said misconduct was brought to light to the second respondent through serious of allegations received from the other local consumers, the second respondent has himself inspected the spot and found the allegations as true and thereupon, the petitioner was warned not to repeat the same. Subsequently, though the said misconduct was punishable under the Standing Orders, in order to keep the industrial harmony, no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner, but as a measure of keeping persons under discipline and control, the second respondent instructed the third respondent to transfer the petitioner and accordingly, the third respondent transferred the petitioner from Rural/Thiruvallur to Poondi section within the same sub-division, which is just 2 kms. away from the earlier place. Subsequently, the present impugned transfer order came to be passed, based on the Vigilance enquiry conducted by the TNEB Vigilance Cell, on the basis of serious allegations, involving the petitioner along with one Junior Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, had indulged in pedalling money for effecting service connections to the consumers in Thiruvallur Division itself i.e., the second respondent circle. Therefore, it was decided to take action against the delinquents through disciplinary proceedings. On that basis, in the interest of administrative reasons, the first respondent has transferred all the employees involving in such bad practise, for the purpose of maintaining harmony, smoother administration of the board. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned order of transfer was thus effected in view of the fact that because of his continuous stay at one division, namely 11 years, he has acquired extensive contact at various levels including the money pedalling elements. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer came to be passed within a period of one week from the earlier order, which is purely on the administrative reasons and not as stated by the petitioner, and on that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. The petitioner joined as Assistant Helper in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Perunagar, Kancheepuram District, which is coming under the second respondent. When he was working from 21.08.1993, he was subsequently promoted as Helper in the year 1995 and was allowed to continue in the same office. After two years, in the year 1997, he was transferred and posted at the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Rural Thiruvallur, and four years thereafter, he was promoted as Wireman and again, he was allowed to continue in the same office. Whileso, he was transferred from the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Rural Thiruvallur, to the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondi, Thiruvallur, by an order of the third respondent, in his proceedings dated 26.02.2011. Having seen that the petitioner has been working for about 10 years in the same circle, the first respondent passed the impugned order of transfer dated 19.03.2011, posting him to the Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 31.03.2011, expressing his grievance and difficulties for joining duty at the above said Circle at Coimbatore, with a request to reconsider his case. On consideration of his representation, he was directed to join duty at Coimbatore Circle office, by issuing relieving order dated 31.03.2011. 8. The counter filed by the respondents shows that the impugned transfer order was effected due to the complaints made by the local consumers alleging serious misconduct. On receipt of the complaint from the local consumers, the second respondent himself has inspected the spot and found the allegations were true, since he has extended the supply of metro water 24 hrs. feeder supply to some other selective consumers for the use in domestic and commercial services. On that basis, he was warned not to repeat the same. Having seen that his repeated act as mentioned above, which is a misconduct under the Standing Orders, the second respondent, considering the peculiar circumstances under which he has given room for making complaints by various local consumers, instructed the third respondent to transfer the petitioner, not only for the reason that his conduct was clouded with complaints https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ given by the various consumers, but also for the reason that he has been working for more than 11 years in the same division, namely, Kanchipuram Distribution Circle, since 2001. When the first respondent, on the basis of the Vigilance Enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell, has found that some serious allegations are prima facie against the petitioner along with one another Junior Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer in pedalling money for effecting service connections to the consumers in Thiruvallur Division itself, he has decided to transfer all the involved employees for maintaining the harmony, smoother administration of the Board and in public interest. Therefore, the first respondent, finding that his further continuous presence in the same division would disturb the interest of the administration, has passed the present impugned transfer order. 9. At this juncture, it is useful to mention the settled legal position in the matters of transfer orders. It is trite law that the Courts should not interfere with the transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide, inasmuch as the transfer is not only an incident of service, but also a condition of service. Hence, a Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, as he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. But, when I look at the counter filed by the respondents, it goes to show that on the basis of Vigilance enquiry conducted by the TNEB Vigilance Cell based on serious allegations involving the petitioner along with one Junior Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer had indulged in pedalling money for effecting service connection to the consumers in Thiruvallur Division, therefore, the first respondent decided to take action against the delinquents through disciplinary proceedings and simultaneously, the first respondent has transferred all the involved employees for maintaining harmony, smoother administration of the Board and in public interest. However, while effecting the transfer on the administrative ground, the petitioner has been transferred from the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondy, to the Coimbatore Circle, and thereby, he has been placed as a junior most employee in the transferred place, and in view of the said transfer a prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in affecting his seniority. 10. In this context, it is useful to refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sri Janardhan Debanath and another (2004 4SCC 245), wherein it has been held that the exercise of Courts/Tribunals to adjudge whether a transfer order 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. Unless the transfer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ involves any such adverse impact or visits the persons concerned with any penal consequences, they have not required to be subjected to any 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 quality of public service. On this basis, while looking at the case of the petitioner, it is seen that by way of impugned transfer order from Kanchipuram Division to Coimbatore Division, he has suffered a prejudice, since he has to work as a junior most employee in the transferred place. Since the impugned order has visited with denial of seniority, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be interfered with. However, the allegations against the petitioner are of serious in nature, therefore, the second respondent himself conducted a spot inspection and found the said allegations were true and thereupon, the petitioner was warned not to repeat the same. Even thereafter, the petitioner was found to have continued the same practise and thereupon, he has given more room for initiation of disciplinary action against him. Further, a Vigilance enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell also shows that not only the petitioner, but also one another Junior Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer had indulged in pedalling money for effecting service connection to the consumers in Thiruvallur Division itself, i.e., the second respondent circle. Therefore, the first respondent decided to transfer all the involved employees for maintaining harmony, and smoother administration of the Board. Though the order of transfer passed on the ground that the petitioner has enjoyed long continuous stay in Kanchipurma Division for more than 11 years is found to be justified, as he has been transferred from one division to another division, namely from Kanchipuram to Coimbatore, he has been placed as a junior most employee in the transferred place. Therefore, this Court, by setting aside the order of transfer, gives a liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner departmentally, for having committed misconduct under the Standing Orders. In the meanwhile, he may be transferred to any other place without affecting his seniority. 11. In result, the present writ petition is allowed. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. rkm Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Chief Engineer (Personal), TNEB, 8th Floor, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Administrative Branch, NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer (O&M), TNEB, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Kancheepuram. 3.The Executive Engineer (O&M), TNEB, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. 4.The Assistant Engineer (O&M), TNEB, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Poondi, Thiruvallur District. +1 cc to Mr. A. Ramalingam, Advocate SR No.53963 UG(CO) SR/6.9.2011 Order in W.P.No.8974/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/