THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1189 of 2009 Date: 2.11.2009 Between: Uccha Siksha Aur Sodh Sansthan, Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, T. Nagar, Chennai and others. .... Appellants AND Dr. A.K. Trivedi and others. .. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1189 of 2009 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The matter came up before us on the petition filed by the 1st respondent in the writ appeal seeking vacation of the interim order dated 8.10.2009 passed in this Appeal, whereby the order of the learned single Judge was suspended. With the consent of the learned counsel, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for hearing. The matter arises out of the action of the Vice Chancellor, Dakshina Bharath Hindi Prachara Sabha, Chennai in seeking to transfer the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner from Viayawada to Chennai. Aggrieved by the said action, the 1st Respondent approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 8048 of 2009 in the first instance, which was disposed of by order dated 29.6.2009, leaving the entire issue to the Vice Chancellor of the Uccha Siksha Aur Sodh Sanathan, Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, the 1st Appellant in the appeal, to consider all the factors and decide as to whether the transfer of the 1st Respondent was still required. Pursuant to the said direction, the order dated 22.8.2009 was passed transferring the 1st Respondent from Vijayawada to Chennai on administrative and disciplinary grounds as per Rule 24(13) of the Service Rules of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachara Sabha (for short ‘the Sabha’). The order dated 22.8.2009 was impugned by the 1st Respondent in Writ Petition No. 18832 of 2009, from which the present appeal arises. The learned single Judge, by her Order dated 14.9.2009, found that the said transfer was in violation of the principles of natural justice as the 1st Respondent had not been put on notice with regard to the oral complaints said to have been received against him which instigated the Sabha to exercise its power under Rule 24(13) of the Rules. The learned Judge observed that the Sabha was required to give an opportunity to the 1st Respondent to meet the allegations and only after considering his explanation, in the event the Sabha felt that a prima facie case was made out for resorting to Rue 24(13), such order of transfer could have been made. As the said procedure was not followed, the learned Judge held that the impugned order was unsustainable in law and accordingly set aside the same. The officials of the Sabha are in appeal before us. Heard Sri R.N. Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellants and Sri N. Sridhar Reddy for the 1st Respondent. The Rules of the Sabha make it clear that no transfer can be effected during the Semester year [Rule 24(2)]. Similarly, only an employee who has served at a college for three years can be transferred to another College [Rule 24(7)]. Under Rule 24(10), a teacher of a College who has been transferred more than four times in his service, cannot thereafter be transferred. It is in the light of these Rules that Rule 24(13) has to be read and interpreted. Rule 24(13) states as follows: “In case of the complaints, about a character, misconduct, insubordination of the employee, transfer may be effected at any time without taking into the consideration the period of stay”. In the present case, it is the stand of the Sabha that oral complaints were received about the 1st Respondent and that his performance was not upto the mark as he was not following the Rules and Regulations of the Sabha. These are the reasons put forth as grounds for transferring the 1st Respondent under the impugned proceedings. The transfer was therefore at the instance of some oral complaints and the perceived short fall in the performance of the 1st Respondent due to his non-adherence with the guidelines. However, the 1st Respondent was not put on notice either about the oral complaints or about his lack of performance. In such circumstances, the transfer sought to be effected by the Sabha partakes of a punitive nature as is evident from the use of the words ‘disciplinary grounds’ in the impugned order and could not have been resorted to without an enquiry into the matter. It is also doubtful whether Rule 24(13) would have overriding effect over Rule 24(10), as Rule 24(13) only speaks of ‘period of stay’ and not the maximum number of transfers. Be that as it may, Rule 24(13) necessarily has to be interpreted to include within it the principles of natural justice and as rightly pointed out by the learned judge, resort to this Rule without seeking an explanation from the employee and considering the same, would be unsustainable in law. The order under appeal is therefore unassailable on facts and in law. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 2nd November, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb