THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24983 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Divisional Engineer in APGENCO first respondent herein. At present, he is working in the Rayalas Thermal Power Project (RTPP). Through order, dated 01.10.2010, th respondent transferred him to another unit at Hampi Power House und control of Superintending Engineer/O&M/TBHES. The petitioner challe the same. He contends that the order is vindictive and certain replies by him to the letter addressed by the Superintending Engineer, the respondent herein, were taken as offensive. It is submitted that he is fa implicated in tripping of unit and other problems in RTPP. The difficu account of transfer in the middle of the academic year, is also pleaded. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to the petitioner is in the habit of taking on the superiors, so much so, i context of an application filed by him under the Right to Information 2005, he went to the extent of challenging the very functioning o National Information Commission. Reference is made to a letter issu their counsel, who represented them in Appeal No.247 of 2006 as t exception taken by the Commission about the behaviour of the petition is alleged that the petitioner failed to discharge his functions when the at RTPP tripped and instead of attending to the matter, he wen challenging the authority and the functioning of his superiors. The los occurred on account of his negligence is also indicated. Heard Sri B.Venkatadari, learned counsel for the petitioner, an K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondents. The order of transfer is clear as to the circumstances, under wh came to be made. Detailed reference is made to the acts and omissio the part of the petitioner, ever since the Unit – 2 Generator Stator in R tripped. It is ultimately mentioned that a departmental enquiry is prop against the petitioner and to facilitate the same, the petitioner is transfer Whenever an organization intends to conduct departmental en and it feels that the presence of the employee at that place is pro hamper the enquiry, two options are open to it –the first one is to plac employee under suspension and the second one is to transfer him different place. The second option is always beneficial to the employe any objection is taken to it and an order passed in that behalf is found with, the freedom of the employer to have recourse to the first option rem in tact. The petitioner could have assailed the order of transfer, if it is sile to the reasons, by alleging that it is a camouflaged exercise. Once the itself makes it manifest that it is passed to prevent him from interfering the enquiry, the petitioner cannot find fault with it. If his contention is accepted, the respondents may have to suspend the petitioner. So far as the place to which the petitioner is transferred that is dispute i.e., it is one of the units of the first respondent. As of now, se employees of the first respondent are working at that place. Viewed any angle, this Court finds no basis for interfering with the impugned ord The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no ord to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:07.10.2010 VGB