IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6894 of 2009 Between: M.Purushotham, S/o. M.Narayana, Sub-Registrar office, Lankalapalem, Anakapalli Registration District, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 the Deputy Inspector General of Registrtion & Stamps, Door No.30-50- 35/10, Gurucharan Marg, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, N.B.K.Estate, R.T.C. Cross Roads, Hyderabad. 3 State of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secreatry to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 D.Venkaiah Naidu S/o. D.Butchi Naidu, Sub Registrar Office Lankalapalem, Anankapalli Registration District, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of wRit of Mandamus, declaring the orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.2498/2009 dated 23.3.2009 setting aside the proceedings of the 1st Respondents in E1/396/2008 dated 15.12.2008 as arbitrary, unreasonable, improper and set aside the same and further direct the 1st to 3rd Respondents to retain the Petitioner as Sub-Registrar Grade-II, of Lankapalem Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalli Registration District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.MADHUSUDANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WP No.6894 OF 2009 ORDER : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 23-3-2009 passed in OA No.2468 of 2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and also the proceedings in E1/396/2008, dated 15- 12-2008 passed by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, unreasonable, improper and set aside the same and further direct the respondents 1 to 3 to retain the petitioner herein as Sub-Registrar Grade-II of Lankalapalem Sub-Registrar Office, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The brief facts of the case are:- the 4th respondent herein filed the above OA No.2468 of 2009 questioning his transfer order dated 15- 12-2008 transferring him from Sub-Registrar Office, Lankalapalem to Palakonda. The Tribunal, by order dated 12-2-2009, by way of an interim order, suspended the transfer order dated 15-12-2008. By the date of granting interim suspension of the transfer order, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Sub-Registrar Office, Lankalapalem from Sub-Registrar Office, Narsipatnam and he joined duty at Lankalapalem on 11-2-2009. It is stated that the petitioner after coming to know about the interim suspension of the transfer order of 4th respondent transferring him to Sub-Registrar Office, Palakonda from Sub-Registrar Office, Lankalapalem, the petitioner who was transferred from Narsipatnam and posed to Lankalapalem and joined duty, filed MA No.1092 of 2009 and impleaded himself as party respondent in the OA. He also filed VMA No.322 of 2009 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 12-2-2009 passed by the Tribunal. It is stated that the Tribunal ordered the implead petition on 3-3-2009 and heard the VMA and the OA. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the OA and directed the official respondents to re-post the 4th respondent herein (applicant in the OA) as Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the 4th respondent therein filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of transfer of the 4th respondent as it is the prerogative of the employer to post persons at appropriate place and unless it is made out that the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. It is also submitted that the petitioner having transferred from Narsipatnam to Lankalapalem has joined duty at Lankalapalem and in view of the impugned order allowing the OA he cannot be disturbed from the present place of posting at Lankalapalem. It is also contended that the penalty of punishment inflicted on the petitioner relates to the 2003 and the 4th respondent cannot harp on that punishment. The decision in UNION OF INDIA vs. SL ABBAS (1993) 4 SCC 357 is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent, on the other hand, contended that Tribunal having regard to the fact that the 4th respondent (applicant) was once imposed with the minor punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment and that he cannot be punished for the second time by way of transfer, rightly set aside the transfer order of the 4th respondent. Learned counsel further contended that transfer cannot be way of punishment. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II submitted that transfer is an incident of service and who should be transferred, where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. 6. Admittedly, enquiry proceedings were initiated against the 4th respondent while he was working at Gajuwaka and ended in awarding minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and so there cannot be any reason for the respondents for transferring the 4th respondent as a measure of punishment. It is on record that the petitioner faced more serious charges and was awarded with major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, so the contention that the 4th respondent is not suitable to be posted in high revenue station like Lankelapalem cannot be appreciated. That apart, it is settled proposition of law that transfer is an incidence of Government service. Paras 6 and 7 of the decision in SL Abbas’s case reads thus: “An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it…”. 7. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ B. Seshasayana Reddy, J Dated : 15-4-2009 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}