IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18832 of 2009 Between: Dr.A.K.Trivedi, Dakshin Bharat Hhindi Prachar Sabha, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND Uccha Siksha Aur Sodh Sansathan, Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai rep by its Vice Chancellor and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18832 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the Principal of Dr.M.S.College of Education, Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Vijayawada. It is not in dispute that he was posted at Vijayawada on 6.5.2007 and thus he has completed about 2 ½ years. While so, in the month of April 2009, the petitioner was transferred to Madras and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8048 of 2009 contending that the impugned transfer was contrary to the Service Rules of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras. It was contended that as per Rule 24 (2) of the Rules, no transfer can be effected in the semester year and that apart as per Rule 24 (3), the employee should be intimated two months prior to the transfer. It was also the contention of the petitioner that as per Rule 24 (7) only those employees who have served at a college for three years can be transferred to any other college and as per Rule 24 (10) the teacher of B.Ed., college cannot be transferred more than four times in his service and the impugned transfer was in violation of the said Rules. Having heard both the parties, this Court disposed of W.P.No.8048 of 2009 by order dated 29th June 2009 leaving the entire matter to be examined by the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent University. There was a specific direction to the 1st respondent to consider all factors and decide as to whether it is still needed to transfer the petitioner and till such time, the petitioner shall not disturb from the place where he is working. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the impugned order dated 22.8.2009 came to be passed, transferring him again to Madras on administrative and disciplinary grounds as per Rule 24 (13) of the Service Rules of the Sabha. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Rule 24 (13) of the Rules upon which the respondents have relied upon runs as under:- “In case of the complaints, about a character, misconduct, insubordination of the employee, transfer maybe effected at any time without taking into the consideration the period of stay.” It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that there were oral complaints against the petitioner and that apart the petitioner’s performance was also not up to the mark and therefore, the Administrative Committee of the 1st respondent has taken a decision in its meeting held on 12.4.2009 to transfer the petitioner from Vijayawada to Chennai so that he would be under the direct supervision of the Vice Chancellor, Pro-Vice Chancellor and the Registrar. As could be seen from the Rule extracted above, no doubt the 1st respondent is empowered to transfer an employee on the ground of misconduct or insubordination of the employee in which event the period of stay need not be taken into consideration. However, the impugned transfer was admittedly made on account of certain oral complaints received against the petitioner. The other allegation is that the performance of the petitioner in not up to the mark. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was never informed about the said allegations and no opportunity was given to him at any point of time to meet the allegations. It is apparent that the respondents have unilaterally concluded that the petitioner’s performance was not satisfactory and accordingly passed the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Janardhan Debanath and another[1] contended that for the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was a misbehavior or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned. At the out set, it is to be noted even according to the respondents there are no such serious allegations against the petitioner but it was only recorded in the minutes dated 12.4.2009 that there were some oral complaints that his performance was not up to the mark. In such circumstances, the principles of natural justice require providing an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the said allegations. After receiving the explanation, if any from the petitioner, in case the respondents are prima facie satisfied, of course it is open to them to resort to Rule 24 (13). Since no such procedure is followed, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to take appropriate action following due process of law. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:14.09.2009 mrb [1] (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 245