THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9369 OF 2010 Dated: 30.04.2010 Between: S. Jangu … Petitioner And Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director And another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9369 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Divisional Manager in Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited at Bhadrachalam. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 1st respondent Corporation dated 20.04.2010 transferring the petitioner from Bhadrachalam to Hyderabad as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Corporation. The impugned transfer is challenged by the writ petitioner on the following grounds: (i) As the petitioner is due to retire within 8 months on attaining the age of superannuation, the impugned order of transfer is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.379, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 29.08.1996 which restricts transfer of employees who are going to retire within one year from the places where they are presently working. (ii) The impugned order was contrary to the ban on transfers issued by the State Government. (iii) As on the date of the impugned order dated 20.04.2010 the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, who is the competent authority, was on leave and therefore the impugned order which was passed by the Officer, who was kept in full additional charge of the post of Vice-Chairman and Managing Director vide G.O.Rt.No.362, dated 16.04.2010, is without jurisdiction. (iv) The impugned order of transfer which was passed only to accommodate the 2nd respondent herein is arbitrary and unwarranted. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Corporation in which the fact that the petitioner is due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation by the end of December, 2010 has not been disputed. However, it is stated that the Government instructions that the employee due to retire within a year shall not be transferred are applicable to Government servants only and unless the same are specifically made applicable to the 1st respondent Corporation the same cannot be applied to the services in the 1st respondent Corporation. It is further stated that the 1st respondent Corporation has never adopted G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 29.08.1996 relied upon by the petitioner. So far as the ban on transfers imposed by the Government of A.P. vide G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 17.6.2009 is concerned, it is stated that the same is not applicable to the 1st respondent Corporation as held by this Court in W.P.No.1247 of 2010, dated 12.03.2010. The stand taken by the 1st respondent Corporation on the above said two issues could not be disputed by the petitioner and no material could be placed before this Court to show that the Government orders are adopted by or made applicable to the 1st respondent Corporation. Hence, the impugned order cannot be held to be bad on those grounds. So far as the contention that the impugned order which was passed in the absence of the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director is without jurisdiction is concerned, it is explained in the counter-affidavit that though it is a fact that Dr. B. Kishore, I.A.S., V.C. & M.D. of the 1st respondent Corporation was on leave from 16.04.2010 to 30.04.2010, the note file with regard to transfer of the petitioner from Bhadrachalam to Hyderabad was approved on 15.04.2010 itself with a direction to issue necessary transfer orders. The said fact is clear from the Note File placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Corporation. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer was passed by incompetent person is factually incorrect and cannot be a ground to challenge the impugned transfer. The petitioner’s allegation that the impugned order of transfer was passed only to accommodate the 2nd respondent has been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit and it is explained that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner and a charge-memo was served on him long back on 21.10.2009 framing 3 charges. It is stated that in spite of reminders, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation and having regard to the gravity of allegations against the petitioner and moreover as there is every likelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses, the 1st respondent thought it desirable to transfer him to a different place. Though a Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that the allegations in the charge memo are false and baseless, the fact that he failed to submit his explanation within the stipulated time could not be disputed. It is stated that he sent his explanation by registered post on 3.4.2010 whereas the charge memo was admittedly issued on 13.10.2009. Be that as it may, as noticed above, absolutely no case could be made out to show that the impugned order is without jurisdiction or contrary to the service rules governing the Corporation. The law is well-settled that transfer is an incident of service and therefore judicial interference is warranted only in rare cases where the order is found to be without jurisdiction or contrary to law or vitiated by mala fides. As explained above, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order of transfer is not vitiated by mala fides much less it can be termed as without jurisdiction or contrary to service rules. Hence the Writ Petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.04.2010 gbs