IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1346 of 2009 Between: Smt.Aseema Mishra W/o.Santhosh Kumar Mishra Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, rep. byits Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Shramshakthi Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, Shramshakthi Bhavan, New Delhi. 3 The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Hyderabad. 4 Shri M.M.Mishra Armed and Weapon Port, Allahabad, Utter Pradesh. .....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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and connected with the order of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad dated 23.01.2009 rendered in O.A.No.312 of 2008 and the Office Order No.6 of 2008 (F. No.A-22012/03/2008-CLS.I), dated 23.05.2008 of the 1st respondent and quash or set aside the same to the extent of transfer of petitioner from the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) to Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam with all consequential benefits and pass such order or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAVEEN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1346 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23-01-2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.312 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal upheld the proceedings dated 23-05-2008 transferring the petitioner to NAD, Visakhapatnam. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at Hyderabad since November, 2006. While so, the 1st respondent issued transfer order dated 23-05-2008 transferring the petitioner to Visakhapatnam. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.312 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. The Tribunal, by impugned order dated 23-01-2009, directed the petitioner herein to make a representation to the 3rd respondent duly joining at the transferred place and the respondents shall give the petitioner the opportunity to be heard on the complaint made against her and consider her request keeping in mind that she has been transferred much before completion of tenure period, and pass orders within one month from the date of receipt of the representation duly hearing her. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. Heard both sides. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is transferred on the basis of a false complaint given against her and the transfer is not made on administrative grounds and that the petitioner has not even completed 1 ½ years of service in the present station, as such the transfer could not be effected. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on decisions reported in P.PUSHPAKARAN Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, COIR BOARD, COCHIN, AND ANOTHER[1], R.SUDHAKAR Vs. M/s.INDIAN IMMUNOLOGICALS, HYDERABAD [2] , SHAMRAO CHANDRAPPA KAMBLE Vs. DEPUTY ENGINEER (B & C), PANCHAYAT SAMITI, MIRAJ, SANGLI AND OTHERS[3], P.ANJANEYULU Vs. CHIEF MANAGER, A.P. CIRCLE, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER[4] and A.VENUGOPAL RAO Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT AND OTHERS [5] . On the other hand, Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that the transfer of the petitioner was effected only on administrative grounds based on the recommendations made by the transfer committee and therefore there are no reasons to interfere with the same. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. JANARDHAN DEBANATH AND ANOTHER[6], wherein the Supreme Court observed that when the allegations made against the government employee are of serious nature and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming, whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding and for the purpose of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and that the question whether the government employee could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for the Supreme Court to direct one way or the other. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, it is not in dispute that for the purpose of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and that the question whether the government employee could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. There is no dispute that in the present case there was an allegation against the present petitioner and some kind of enquiry was conducted which revealed that the allegation made against the petitioner is prima facie true. In that view of the matter, there are absolutely no grounds to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner on the ground that she is being transferred on a complaint without conducting any enquiry, more so when the transfer of an employee is an incidence of service and the transfer of the petitioner was effected on administrative grounds based on the recommendations made by the transfer committee. Further, though the petitioner contends that she is having old aged mother and school going children and her husband is working outside the country, the same will not come in the way of transferring the petitioner, as the education and medical facilities, as is available in Hyderabad, also available to them in Visakhapatnam and that too we are at the beginning of the academic year. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 04-06-2009 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} [1] 1979 (1) SLR 309 [2] 1997 (5) ALD 175 [3] 1998 (2) SLR 418 [4] 2001 (3) ALD 313 (DB) [5] 2002 Suppl. (1) ALD 147 (DB) [6] (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 245