THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1247 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing Rc.No.9/2010.Admn.I, dated 20.01.2010 of the 1st respondent, Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.196, Finance W&M Department, dated 22-07-2009 and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to continue the petitioner as Junior Stores Assistant at GPCMS, Itchoda. The petitioner also filed WPMP.No.1661 of 2010 seeking to suspend the proceedings dated 20.01.2010 of the 1st respondent, pending the writ petition. This Court on 28.01.2010, while issuing Rule nisi, passed the interim order of status quo obtaining as on the date of the order, so far as the petitioner is concerned, shall be maintained until further orders. Seeking to vacate the said interim order, respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent have filed separate counters. When these vacate petitions have been taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on either side have requested this Court to dispose of the main writ petition itself. Therefore, the main writ petition is disposing of. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that when he was working as Junior Stores Assistant, DO, Srisailam, he made a request to transfer him to GPCMS, Itchoda and his request was considered and transferred and posted him at GPCMS, Itchoda on 16.07.2009. Further, the Government by its G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 22-07-2009 ordered ban on all transfers except in respect of certain transfers i.e., for promotions etc., the impugned transfer order is passed on 20.01.2010 vide proceedings bearing Rc.No.9/2010.Admn.I, on the alleged administrative grounds. The said administrative grounds will not come under relaxation given by the Government in its G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 22.07.2009 and hence it is effected contrary to the ban imposed by the Government. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the said Government order. Questioning the impugned proceedings dated 20.01.2010, the present writ petition has been filed. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, counter has been filed admitting that the petitioner was transferred vide proceedings dated 20.01.2010 on administrative grounds. It is also submitted that there are several complaints against the petitioner by the Hostel Welfare Officers/Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer about his indifferent attitude and not discharging his legitimate duties and for causing much inconvenience to Ashram Schools/Hostels by late delivery of Essential Commodities/other Domestic Requirements (DRs) even with under weighment. It is also submit that the said irregularities were also primarily established in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Special Grade Deputy Collector/Vigilance Officer. Besides the petitioner caused huge deficits of Rs.30,997.15ps and paid later thereby resorted to cause temporary misappropriation. Further, the petitioner himself admitted in his representation dated 21.11.2009 that due to lack of experience, certain irregularities have occurred and his admissions are enough to prove the existence of irregularities. Though the petitioner ought to have been transferred to some other place for the gravity of irregularities, however, keeping in view of his earlier request dated 08.06.2009 made at the time of general transfers, that he may be transferred to his native place, Adilabad and also considering the request of the 3rd respondent that he has to look after his aged parents who are residing at Morkhandi Village of Bazarhathnoor Mandal nearer to Itchoda Society, the said transfers are effected, wherein the petitioner was transferred to his place of request in spite of the irregularities committed by him. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned proceedings. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, counter has been filed, inter alia, stating that he was appointed as Salesman in the respondent’s Corporation in the year 1991 and thereafter he was promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 2005. While promoting him as Junior Assistant, he was transferred to Girijan Primary Co-operative Marketing Society, Adilabad, since he is having old aged and ailing parents. Vide impugned proceedings dated 20.01.2010 he was transferred to the 2nd respondent’s Society and the petitioner was transferred to Girijan Primary Co-operative Marketing Society, Adilabad. Therefore, there is no illegality in passing the impugned proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the material on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.196 dated 22.07.2009 issued by the Government, as the impugned proceedings is issued by the 1st respondent during the ban period. Further, it is also submitted that in the impugned proceedings, Enquiry Report Rc.No.32/2009/VO(EO), dated 02.01.2010 of the SGDC/Vigilance Officer, GCC Limited, Visakhapatnam was referred as the 2nd reference, which contains certain allegations against the petitioner. From viewing this point of view, the impugned proceedings have been issued as a measure of punishment without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, the 1st reference in the impugned proceedings is the representation dated 12.06.2009 of the 3rd respondent, which was already considered and effected in general transfers. It is also submitted that had the impugned order has been issued purely on administrative grounds, the petitioner could not have grievance but it is not so, since the impugned proceedings is referring about the Enquiry report in Rc.No.32/2009/VO(EO), dated 02.01.2010 of the SGDC/Vigilance Officer, GCC Limited, Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the impugned order appears to be issued as a measure of punishment under the guise of administrative reasons. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 22.07.2009 is strictly concerned to Government servants only. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s service is governed only by the service rules framed by the Corporation strictly. As per Rule 14, Part-B, Chapter-1 of GCC Service Rules, the Vice Chairman and Managing Director is competent to transfer any employee in the interest of Corporation on administrative reasons. Further, the Board of Directors of respondent Corporation in their meeting held on 11.08.1998 having felt that the existing service rules are not exhaustive, resolved vide their resolution 74/98-99 “to adopt ‘A.P. Civil Services Code’ and ‘A.P. Fundamental Rules’ only wherever the GCC Service Rules are silent”, which is inserted in the Service Rules at Chapter-1, Part-A as Rule-7. In that view of the matter, the Corporation is at liberty to apply Government Orders when its rules are silent only. It is also submit that the petitioner has no right to question the said action of the 1st respondent on flimsy grounds. In view of the above, he submitted that the impugned order is neither illegal nor contrary to G.O.Ms.No.196 dated 22.07.2009. Moreover, despite the fact that the petitioner committed grave misconduct and irregularities which warrant severe disciplinary action, as there was an imperative need to keep in track the PDS function, at the first instance, the petitioner was shifted from that post to a non-focal post, which do not attach with cash and stock responsibility, and keeping in view his earlier request, he was shifted to Adilabad, which is his native place, which shows the considerate and humanitarian approach adopted by the Corporation. Further, it is also submitted that though several aspects have been mentioned in the counter affidavit, only with a view to bring to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had indulged several activities, hence the impugned proceedings is issued based on administrative grounds. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that the writ petition is totally misconceived and not maintainable, as G.O.Ms.No.196 dated 22.07.2009 ordering ban on transfers by State Government is not applicable to the respondent Corporation. Girijan Co-operative Corporation, though is a state-owned Corporation, it has got its own rules and regulations. Even though Government has pervasive control over the Corporation, but all the Government orders issued are not binding on the Corporation, except those, which are specifically and expressly made applicable to the Corporation. It is also submitted that this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases, were pleased to hold that transfer is an incidence of service and the Courts should ordinarily not interfere with orders of transfer except where the authority ordering transfer lacks jurisdiction. The main grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that during the ban of transfers issued by the Government vide its G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 22.07.2009, the respondents have passed the impugned proceedings dated 20.01.2010. Further, it is also the grievance of the petitioner about mentioning the enquiry report as one of the references in the impugned proceedings. Prima facie, it is to be seen whether the 1st respondent is empowered to transfer the petitioner and whether G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 22.07.2009 is applicable to the respondent’s Corporation. Rule 14 of the Service Rules of GCC Employees describes as under: “Transfers; a) The appointing authority or an authority superior to him or an officer duly authorized by an appointing authority, is competent to transfer employees from GCC to GPCM Societies and vice versa and from one GPCM Society to another GPCM Society in the interest of administration. ***The powers of the Divisional Managers to trans the officers of Grade V & VI were deleted vide Subject No.2/94-95 and Circular resolution and existing (c) was made (b). b) On administrative grounds, the General Manager in respect of Andhra and Regional Manager in respect of Telangana Region, may transfer any employee of Grade VII and below from one GPCM Society to another and GPCM Society to GCC or vice versa within the same region and Managing Director may transfer all Grades of Officers from one Region to another Region. The Managing Director shall have power to transfer officers in Grades III and IV deputed to work in the GPCM Society to another GPCM Society or from any GPCM Society to any office of the Corporation or vice versa.” It is obvious from the Rule 14(b) of the Rules that the Vice Chairman and Managing Director has empowered to transfer all grades of officers from one region to another region and he also empowered to transfer officers in Grades III and IV deputed to work in the GPCM Society to another GPCM Society or from any GPCM Society to any office of the Corporation or vice versa. Accordingly, the 1st respondent duly exercising his powers under Rule 14 sub Rule (b) of the Service Rules of GCC Employees transferred the petitioner from GPCMS, Itchoda to GPCMS, Adilabad on administrative grounds. Therefore, it does not suffer from the element of lack of jurisdiction. Secondly, it is to be seen whether the G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 22.07.2009 is applicable to the respondents’ Corporation. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 it is categorically mentioned that the Government orders are strictly concerned to Government servants only and the petitioner’s service is governed only by the Service Rules framed by the Corporation strictly. It is also categorically mentioned that the Board of Directors of the Corporation in their meeting held on 11.08.1998 felt that the existing service rules are not exhaustive and resolved vide their Resolution No.74/98-99 “to adopt A.P. Civil Services Code’ and A.P. Fundamental Rules only wherever the GCC Service Rules are silent”, which is inserted in the Service Rules at Chapter-1, Part–A as Rule-7. In that view of the matter, the Corporation is at liberty to apply Government orders when its Rules are silent only. Though the petitioner filed reply to the counters, nothing has been stated that every Government order issued is strictly applicable to the Corporation and contradicting the averment of the official respondents that the Government orders are not strictly applicable to the Corporation no proof has been adduced. Further, it is not the case on hand that the petitioner has questioned the Service Rules of Chapter-1, Part-A of Rule 7. However, though the respondents have referred the G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 17.06.2009 in the order passed by the 1st respondent on 16.07.2009, nowhere in the said order it has been mentioned that pursuant to that Government order the decision of transferring the employees was taken. Mere mentioning the G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 17.06.2009 as read in the order passed by the 1st respondent on 16.07.2009, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent had taken a decision to transfer the employees mentioned in the said order in pursuance to the said Government order only. Finally, coming to the aspect of referring the Enquiry Report Rc.No.32/2009/VO(EO), dated 02.01.2010 of the SGCC/Vigilance Officer, GCC Limited, Visakhapatnam, as one of the references, the learned counsel for the petitioner said that it appears the impugned order was passed on the basis of report of the said Vigilance Officer alleged to have submitted to the 1st respondent. Hence, the transfer is effected by virtue of said alleged enquiry. No notice is given to the petitioner in respect of said alleged enquiry and no enquiry is conducted in accordance with Regulations of the 1st respondent Corporation. In this connection, it is not the case of the petitioner that he did not commit any irregularities and he was given punishment without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry. There is no specific denial from the petitioner to the averment of the official respondents that the petitioner has committed serious misconduct of causing misappropriation of Domestic Requirements worth Rs.30,997.15ps. In such a circumstance, it can be said that despite the fact that the petitioner committed grave misconduct and irregularities, which warrant severe disciplinary action, as there was an imperative need to keep in track the PDS function, at the first instance, the petitioner was shifted from that post to a non-focal post, which do not attach with cash and stock responsibility, and keeping in view his earlier request he was shifted to Adilabad, his native place, which shows the considerate and humanitarian approach adopted by the Corporation and the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds without referring the irregularities committed by the petitioner in detail. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice apart from violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I do not see any irregularity in issuing the impugned order transferring the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 12th March, 2010. LSK