IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 24838 of 2008 Between: Y. Mahalaxmi W/o. Mohan Rao M.P. Kotabommili, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Srikakulam. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Srikakulam. 3 The Commissioner for Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P. Hyderabad. 4 Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc. Rc No. 677/2008/C4 dt. 21-9-2008 and the consequential Proc. Rc No. 677/2008/C4 dt. 3-10-2008 issued by the District Collector, Srikakulam in so far as the observations made by the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 8355 of 2008 dt. 4-10-2008 that a regular enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty for misappropriation of Rs. 3,98,865/- and why ﬁnal orders are not passed and it is not a ﬁt case to suspend the order or suspension dt. 21-9-2008 as illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary to Rule 20 of A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to for reinstatement to duty as Mandal Parishad Development Officer with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The court made the following order: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.24926 of 2008 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the ﬁrst respondent in issuing Memo, dated 18.10.2008, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, and the consequential order passed by the second respondent, dated 27.10.2008, and also the order, dated 06.11.2008, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.8945 of 2008, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to set aside the same. The petitioner states that while he is working as Assistant Engineer at Narsapuram in West Godavari District, basing on the representation made by a Journalist of Secunderabad, a charge memo, dated 09.09.2008, was issued to him, pursuant to which, he ﬁled his written statement of defence on 29.10.2008 stating that the alleged irregularities are not in his jurisdiction and not even in his circle, and requested to drop the charges. He further states that in the meanwhile, the Government issued memo, dated 18.10.2008, directing the Engineer-in-chief to transfer 14 Engineers who were issued with the charge memos and basing on the same, the second respondent has mechanically transferred him to Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canal Circle, Nuzividu, Krishna District by the impugned proceedings, dated 27.10.2008. Questioning the same, the petitioner ﬁled O.A.No.8945 of 2008 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by an order, dated 06.11.2008, erroneously dismissed the same. Hence, the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged irregularities are not in the jurisdiction of the petitioner and the petitioner is in no way connected with the said irregularities, and as such, the charge memo itself is baseless. He would also contend that the Tribunal without taking into consideration all these aspects has erroneously dismissed the O.A. He therefore sought for setting aside the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents submits that the transfer is an incidence of service and the Tribunal has rightly declined to interfere with same stating that no mala ﬁde intentions are attributed to the impugned order. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents, and perused the material on record. Time and again, this Court as well as the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can claim any right to be transferred to a particular place. The only area of interference is where the order of transfer is in violation of any statutory rules or the transfer is eﬀected for ulterior motive or with mala ﬁdes. Further, after appreciating the material available on record and referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P., v. Gobardhanlal [1] and Mohd.Masood Ahmed v. State of U.P. [2], wherein it was held that the Tribunal and Courts shall not ordinarily interfere with the orders of transfer, unless they are vitiated by mala ﬁde intention or prohibited under law, the Tribunal observing that no mala ﬁde intention is attributed to the impugned orders and the transfer is not prohibited by any Statue or any executive instructions, dismissed the O.A., at the admission stage. In view of the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, as it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not relieved and nobody is posted in his place, the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the Engineer-in- Chief putting forth his grievance within a period of one week from today and on such representation being made, the Engineer-in-Chief is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of one week thereafter. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Dt.13.11.2008 VGB [1] 2004 (3) SLR 239 [2] (2007) 8 SCC 150