THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.30382 OF 2010 07-12-2010 Between: V.Venkateswara Rao ……….Petitioner And The Government of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.30382 2010 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 01-12-2010, in O.A.No.8091 of 2001, rendered by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘Tribunal’), whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal declined to exercise the jurisdiction and dismissed the O.A confirming the proceedings dated 16-11-2010 passed by the 1st respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that initially he was appointed as Junior Inspector in Cooperative Department in the year 1979. While he was working as Assistant Registrar in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy District, at the instance of his colleagues, he was falsely implicated in a case vide F.I.R.No.8/ACB-CR-2/2010, dated 13-05-2010, on the ground that he is having disproportionate assets. Consequently, he was placed under suspension. Later, he made a representation to the 1st respondent giving all particulars of assets possessed by him and his family members and sought for revocation of suspension order. The 1st respondent after careful consideration, reinstated him into service and requested the 2nd respondent to post him in a non-focal post on reinstatement. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 01-11-2010 reinstating the petitioner and posted him as Assistant Registrar, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District and accordingly, he was joined on 01-11-2010. While so, one S.Ramananda Swamy, Additional Registrar, President of Telangana Co- operative Gazetted Officers’ Association (TCGO Association), who is inimical towards him, made a false representation to the 1st respondent requesting to posting the petitioner to a far off place and to a non-focal post. Based on the said representation, the 2nd respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 16-11-2010 transferring and posting the petitioner as Assistant Registrar, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the above O.A. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the O.A. holding that the contention of the petitioner that his transfer to Bodhan causes very much inconvenience to him in view of his remaining 11 months service and there is no possibility of shifting his family to Bodhan cannot be accepted as the Government is supposed to give top priority to the public interest than the personal interest. Not satisfied by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.Deepa Naidu contended that based on the representation made by the President of the TCGO Association, the 1st respondent could not issue the proceedings dated 16- 11-2010. Being the office bearer of the Association, no representation can be made against any other employee and the said false representation cannot be entertained and considered by the 1st respondent. He further contended that there is no justification in the order passed by the 1st respondent as the petitioner is going to be retired only within a period of 10 months from service. Therefore, the proceedings dated 16-11-2010 by the 1st respondent and the order passed by the Tribunal are contrary to law and the same are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Others[1], wherein it was held: 19. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds – one malice in fact and the second malice in law. 20. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal. 5. On the other hand, Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, appearing for the respondents, contended that with regard to the disproportionate assets, any government employee cannot be detained in one place. Transfer of service is an incidental service and the employee cannot claim it as a matter of right. He further contended that the 2nd respondent, without following the instructions of the 1st respondent, posted the petitioner at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. However, when there is an allegation against the employee with regard to the disproportionate assets and a criminal case is pending against him, it may not desirable to continue him in the same station as there is a possibility of making influence and manipulation of records. Therefore, he requested to dismiss the writ petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment in Rajendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others[2], wherein, it was held: “A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires.” He also relied upon a judgment in State of U.P. and Another Vs. Siya Ram and Another[3], wherein it was held: “The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned.” 6. Now the point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error? 7. As seen from the record, it is clear that the 1st respondent considered the representation of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds and accordingly issued orders reinstating him into service and requesting the 2nd respondent to post him to a non-focal post at a far off place. But, however, the 2nd respondent without following the instructions issued by the 1st respondent posted the petitioner to Rajenderanagar, Ranga Reddy District. Again the 1st respondent on the representation, directed the 2nd respondent to post the petitioner to a non-focal post in pursuance to his earlier proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioner was transferred to Bodhan. It seems there is no violation on the part of the respondents in issuing transfer orders. 8. Further, by the time of 1st respondent issuing directions to post the petitioner to a non-focal post and reinstatement, there was no representation made by the President of TCGO Association. Moreover, the investigation in a trap case is going on against the petitioner. A trap was laid when he was working at Rajendranagar. Normally, the employees who are involved in such cases will be shifted to places where there is no scope for misuse of powers. Following the said procedure, the petitioner was posted to non-focal post which means where no financial, administrative or discretionary powers are vested on the officers. As the petitioner was not satisfied with this type of post, approached the Tribunal challenging the orders of the 1st respondent as well as the Tribunal. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the order passed by the Tribunal is justified as there is no jurisdictional error apparent on the face of it. The writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated:07-12-2010 ________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR kvr [1] AIR 2009 S.C. 1399 [2] 2009 (15) S.C.C. 178 [3] 2004 (7) S.C.C. 405