1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 09.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P(MD)No.1470 of 2011 And M.P.(MD)Nos.1,2&3 of 2011 K.Ponnusamy .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Tiruchirappalli City, 2.B.Sridhar .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Tiruchirappali City, the first respondent herein, made in CPO.No.73/2011, C.No.A1/36089/10 dated 01.02.2011 quash the same in so far as the transfer of the petitioner is concerned and direct the first respondent herein to retain the petitioner as Inspector of Police, Gandhi Market (L&O) Police Station, Tiruchirappalli City and consequently disburse any service dues which has been withheld on account of the above order of transfer. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Damodaran For Respondent-1 : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Spl.Govt.Pleader For Respondent-2 : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan O R D E R The present writ petition was filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 01.02.2011, an order of transfer. 2.The case of the petitioner in nutshell is stated hereunder:- The petitioner is an Inspector of Police. He was holding the post of Inspector of Police at Vadapalani (Crime) at Chennai. He was transferred by proceedings dated 29.07.2009 from Chennai to Woriyur Crime Station, Tiruchirapalli. Thereafter, on 30.10.2009 he has been transferred from the said place and posted at Gandhi Market, Tiruchirapalli, as Inspector Law and Order. Subsequently, on 17.07.2010 he has been shifted from Gandhi Market and posted at Fort Crime, Tiruchirapalli. The said order was recalled by an order dated 26.07.2010 and again he has been posted at Gandhi Market, as Inspector (L&O). By an order dated 01.02.2011, he has been shifted from the said place and posted at Fort Crime Police Station as an Inspector Crime in Tiruchirapalli itself. The said order is under canvass before this Court by filing the present writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of transfer is liable to be set aside on the following grounds viz., (i) It is a punitive transfer. (ii) The order is tainted with malafide. (iii) No reasons whatsoever has been stated in the order of transfer. (iv) The order of transfer has been passed to accommodate the second respondent (v) By such transfer, the status of the petitioner was affected and (vi) The order of transfer has been passed abusing the power of the first respondent. 4.As far as the first ground is concerned, even the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that such ground was not taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. When such ground was not taken in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, this Court cannot go into that aspect or the said ground. 5.The second ground of attack was that the said order was passed tainted with malafide. Regarding the said ground it is stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that the petitioner has been transferred on the influence of the local politician belonging to a ruling party. The second respondent is a close relative of a popular politician and also a Minister and hence, such order came to be passed. It would be useful to extract paragraph No.7 of the affidavit, which deals with the malafide issue. “7. The petitioner reliably understands that the petitioner has been transferred on the influence of the local politician belonging to ruling party. The third respondent is a close relative of a popular politician and also a minister. The petitioner has been subjected to transfer at the instance of the said politician against the transfer at the instance of the said politician against the transfer guidelines. Hence, the power of transfer has been used for collateral purpose purely for political consideration.” 6.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein he has denied that he is a relative of a popular politician or a Minister. While considering the said ground, it has to be seen that a mere statement that the order came to be passed tainted with malafide is not sufficient. In order to establish malafide, the petitioner has to establish that the order of transfer has been passed at the instance of a 3rd party or the officer himself with some motive. In the case on hand, it is the case of the petitioner that in view of the influence made by the local politician, who is also a Minister, such order came to be passed. In the affidavit in support of the writ petition it is not stated who is that local politician or who is the Minister. That apart, it is also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 not stated that in view of such influence, the first respondent was made to pass the order. The above extracted portion in the affidavit in support of the writ petition will disclose that it is not the case of the petitioner that the politician or the Minister has influenced the first respondent and the first respondent on such influence has passed the order of transfer. 7.Even assuming that the order has been passed by the first respondent with a malafide intention, the petitioner ought to have made the said officer by name, by impleading him as party respondent. The petitioner has not made the officer concerned by name as party respondent. Even otherwise, I am of the considered view that the allegation with regard to malafide was not properly pleaded and established. Hence, the said ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also liable to be rejected. 8.The next contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the order of transfer. In an order of transfer, no reason can be assigned and has to be assigned. Further more it has been stated that not only the petitioner but also 13 other officers have been reshuffled in view of the election. In view of the above stated reasons, I am of the considered view that the said ground raised by the petitioner cannot also be accepted. 9.Yet another ground that has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in order to accommodate the second respondent, such order came to be passed. The said allegation of the petitioner is not substantiated and only a bald allegation was made in the affidavit. Thus I am of the considered view that even the said allegation was not established by the petitioner. 10.The other ground that has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the status of the petitioner was affected. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The status will not change if an Inspector of Police is shifted from L&O to Crime. Hence, I am of the considered view that the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also deserves to be rejected. 11.In the case on hand, as stated already, the petitioner was shifted from Chennai to Tiruchirapalli on 29.07.2009 that is from Vadapalani Crime Branch to Woriyur Crime Branch, Tiruchirapalli. On 30.10.2009 he has been shifted to Crime Department at Woriyur at Gandhi Market, as Inspector of Police (L&O) at Tiruchirapalli. As far as the said transfer is concerned, the petitioner has no grievance because all along he was in Crime Branch and he has been shifted to Law and Order. Absolutely, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has got grievance over such transfer. As far as the transfer order that was made on 17.07.2010 is concerned, from Gandhi Market as Inspector of L&O to Fort Crime, Tiruchirapalli, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 said order of transfer was recalled by an order dated 26.07.2010. Later, by the impugned proceedings he was transferred from Gandhi Market as Inspector L&O to Fort Crime Police Station at the same place. The above extracted facts will reveal that there was no frequent transfer from Chennai to Tiruchirapalli. He has been transferred by proceedings dated 29.07.2009 to Tiruchirapalli and still by the impugned proceedings he is still in Tiruchirapalli. Hence, I am of the considered view that the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was frequently transferred, cannot be accepted. 12.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the guidelines made in G.O.Ms.No.10 P&AR Department, dated 07.01.1994. The said guidelines even assuming that it has got any statutory value or statutory force, I am of the considered view that the said guidelines may not be of any useful to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been shifted from one District to another District. By the impugned order of transfer, he has been shifted from Gandhi Market, which is at Tiruchirapalli to Fort Crime Police Station, which is also at Tiruchirapalli. He has been shifted from one police station to another station within Tiruchirapalli. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the said Government Order or the other judgments, which was relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner will be of any use to the petitioner. 13.The power of the Court in an order of transfer is very limited except under certain circumstances viz., (i) if it is tainted with malafide (ii) the authority who passed the order of transfer has no authority todo so. (iii) If it is violative of any rule. In the case on hand, though the petitioner has pleaded that the order of transfer is tainted with malafide, as discussed above, the same was not established. As far as the other two reasons on which the order of transfer could be questioned is not available to the petitioner. 14.The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in very number of matters have held that the power of the Court in an order of transfer, especially, when exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is very limited. 15. It is useful to refer to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in MANU/SC/0281 : (2004) III LLJ 749 SC State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal,wherein it has been held as follows:- “It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.” 16.In view of the above stated position, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer passed by the first respondent and in fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A ) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner of Police, City Police Office,Tiruchirappalli City, +1cc to Mr.N.Damodaran Advocate, Sr.No.5650 ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.1470 of 2011 09.03.2011 mpk/sma/21.4.2011/3c/5p https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/