THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.20066 of 2009 Dt.22.9.2009 Between: P.Govardhan …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary Revenue (Excise) Department, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.20066 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissing his O.A.No.9829 of 2009 by order, dated 15.9.2009. In the said O.A., the petitioner had challenged his order of transfer vide Memo No.61712/Vig.V(2)/2008-3, dated 13.8.2009, on the ground that the said order of transfer violates the guidelines relating to transfer inasmuch as the petitioner is about to retire by 30.11.2009 and as per guideline (vi) in G.O.Ms.No.169, Finance Department, dated 19.6.2009, employees who are retiring on or before 31.10.2010 shall not be transferred. It was also contended before the Tribunal that no charge sheet is filed against the petitioner though the disproportionate assets case was registered on 5.11.2008 and the petitioner has co-operated with the A.C.B authorities and furnished the information and the documents and transferring him on the verge of retirement, is illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal had considered the aforesaid contentions and in the light of the original file placed before the Tribunal by the learned Government Pleader, the Tribunal found that so far as Prohibition and Excise Department is concerned the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.143, Finance Department, dated 21.6.2007, are applicable and under the aforesaid G.O., there is no prohibition to transfer an employee when he is going to retire in the same year as alleged by the petitioner. The Tribunal was also satisfied, on examination of the file, that the decision of transfer was in response to the suggestion made by the A.C.B. authorities to shift the petitioner to a non-focal post and the said decision was taken at the highest level as recorded in para 11 of the order of the Tribunal. Secondly, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmed v. State of U.P.,[1] and the later decision in Government of A.P. v. G.Venkata Ratnam[2], the Tribunal declined to exercise jurisdiction and dismissed the O.A. In this writ petition, Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made strenuous efforts to contend that G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 29.8.1996, specifically states the Government policy that employees who will attain the age of superannuation within one year from the day on which the authority proposing to transfer may not be transferred from the places where they are presently working. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner is about to retire, the transfer is in complete violation of the said guidelines. Learned counsel also submits that the case of disproportionate assets registered against the petitioner is wholly unwarranted and in reality there is no disproportionate assets as alleged. He also submits that the petitioner has filed a detailed explanation in response to the statutory notice dated 7.4.2009 and the enquiry by the A.C.B. authorities was already over. He also submits that the crime was registered as early as on 4.11.2008, whereas the impugned order of transfer is now made on 13.8.2009 and the authorities have not acted immediately and in the interregnum the entire investigation was over and no purpose would be served by transferring the petitioner and the said transfer is merely vindictive measure of punishment. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in V.V.Ramana Reddy v. Chief General Manager, A.P.Circle, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Government of India, Hyderabad[3] and in particular para 12 thereof in support of the proposition that no order of transfer can be passed by way of or in lieu of punishment and such an order of transfer would be vitiated in law. The learned counsel also relied upon another decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in R.Sudhakar v. M/s.Indian Immunologicals, Hyderabad[4] in support of his contentions. We have considered the said contentions and perused the records. It is evident from the counter filed by the respondents before the Tribunal that the raid was conducted and a crime was registered on 4.11.2008 and preliminary report was submitted on 17.1.2009 showing the prima facie disproportionate assets of the petitioner. In order to ensure that there is no tampering with the records or intimidation of the witnesses, the authorities recommended transfer of the petitioner to a non-focal post and the said suggestion was being considered by the General Administration Department in Government Memo dated 15.10.2008. Therefore, the decision was taken by the Government at the highest level. It was also stated in the said counter that G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 26.6.2008 on which the petitioner has placed reliance is not applicable. Whereas the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 21.6.2007, apply and as per item 7 of Annexure-II thereto there is no prohibition for transfer and in fact transfer can be made for administrative exigencies. We have also noticed that the transfer order itself states that the petitioner is transferred to avoid the likelihood of his tampering with the records and intimidating the witnesses, as such the Government has taken a decision to transfer the petitioner and it cannot be said that the said transfer may cause hardship to the petitioner, as he is going to retire by 30.11.2009, as it is inevitable in view of registration of the case, as rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. So far as the decision reported in V.V.Ramana Reddy v. Chief General Manager, A.P.Circle, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Govt. of India, Hyderabad (supra 3) is concerned, paras 8 and 9 therein show that the disciplinary proceedings commenced against the petitioner therein by issuance of charge sheet was actually dropped by the competent authority and four years thereafter he was sought to be transferred. This Court, therefore, found that having dropped the disciplinary proceedings, as a measure of punishment the order of transfer was made. In this view of the matter, this Court had interfered with the said order. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, which stand entirely in a different footing. So far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel in R.Sudhakar v. M/s.Indian Immunologicals Hyderabad (supra 4) is concerned, this Court held that the transfer order of the petitioner therein was not in the exigencies of administration, but due to pending departmental enquiry which was bad in law. The facts of that case are also not applicable to the present case. An order of transfer can be questioned only on limited grounds of being punitive and in excess of jurisdiction beyond administrative exigencies. The present case does not fall in any of the parameters as above. In that view of the matter, we satisfied that the order of transfer impugned herein does not suffer from any illegality warranting any interference under our Certiorari jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 22.9.2009 kpr [1] [(2007)8 SCC 150] [2] [(2008) 9 SCC 345] [3] 2001 (3) ALD 50 (DB) [4] 1997 (5) ALD 175