IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.08.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.6876 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 Dr.V.J.F.Kumar .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, coimbatore – 641 003. 2.The Dean, Agricultural Engineering College & Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore – 641 003. 3.Dr.R.Kavitha 4.Dr.M.M.Pandey. .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the reversion order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the first respondent in proceeding No.A2/4493/2007 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to restore original post of Professor and Head of the Department in TNAU, Coimbatore to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.S.J.Jagadev For RR1 and 2 : Mrs.D.Geetha For R.3 : Mr.K.Rajasekaran For R.4 : Mr.Rajendran Raghavan O R D E R The petitioner was working as Professor and Head, ICAR- Coordinated scheme on Res. & Dev., Agrl. Machinery Research Centre, AEC&RI, Coimbatore from 09.05.2006 onwards in the Agricultural Engineering College & Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. The first respondent by his proceedings in No.A2/4493/2007 dated 18.09.2007, transferred and posted the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner as Professor (Farm Machinery), Department of Food and Agricultural Process Engineering, AEC&RI, Coimbatore agaisnt the post of Associate Professor (Agrl.Engg.) under Plan-NARP-I, scheme from the Department of Farm Machinery, AEC&RI, Coimbatore [Post occupied by Dr.D.Asokan, Professor (Farm Machinery)]. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 2.According to the petitioner, the third respondent who is working as an Associate Professor made certain allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct against the petitioner during the month of September 2007. But the petitioner made a counter complaint against the third respondent in respect of misconduct allegedly committed by her. An Enquiry Committee headed by Dr.V.Valluvaparidasan, Controller of Examination, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University was constituted to go into the said allegations. The Committee submitted a report dated 18.09.2007 holding that the allegations cannot be substantiated. On the same day, the impugned order of transfer was effected. 3.According to the petitioner, the impugned order of transfer cannot be termed as an order of transfer, simplicitor, as it has got the effect of reversion to the lower post. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the functions of the Head of the Department are governed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Statues. According to which, (a) the Head of the Department shall be responsible to the Dean/Director of the University for administrative, academic and all other activities of the Department/Station; (b) he shall report on the teaching, research and extension education works of the Department/Station to the Dean/Director of the University; (c) he shall have general supervision of the work of students in the Department; (d) he shall prepare in time the Budget of the Department/Station; (e) he shall be responsible for distribution and expenditure of Departmental funds and for the care of Department’s/Station’s property; (f) he shall provide for protection against theft, fire and other damages and (g) he shall carry out any other functions as may be directed by the Dean/Director and the Vice-Chancellor. 4.The said powers are not available to an Associate Professor or Professor who is not the Head of the Department. Though technically, according to the learned counsel, there is reversion in the post, there is actual lowering of status and thus, it amounts to reversion. Therefore, the impugned order according to the learned counsel, is liable to be set aside. 5.In the counter filed by the first respondent, inter alia, it is contended that the transfer does not amount to any punishment or reversion. The counter further states that there is neither a separate post sanctioned as Head of the Department nor specific rules and regulations for appointment and service conditions etc., for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Head of the Department. Further, it is neither a promotion nor elevation to higher position nor carries any increase in the emoluments. Similarly, the relief from the responsibility of the Head of the Department neither reduces the rank of the incumbent nor reduces the emoluments. It is only the assignment of the responsibility to exercise administrative and financial powers for the administration of the Department. The delegation of power to a Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor shall be decided by the Vice Chancellor from time to time based on the capability and contribution of an individual, for the functioning and development of the Department and the assignment of powers is not for a specific period, since there is no such regulation and order at the time of conferment of such responsibility. 6.In respect of the above contentions, I am in full agreement with the said stand taken by the first respondent. As far as the service conditions in terms of the regulations are concerned, the Professor and Professor cum Head of the Department are of the same cadre. A person who is now today functioning as Head of the Department can be tomorrow made as Professor and vice versa at the will and pleasure of the Vice Chancellor based on the capability and contribution of an individual and other requirements. Admittedly, there is no reduction in emoluments etc. Though, it is true that the post of Head of the Department has got more powers as enumerated above, it does not mean that it is a promotion post. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer amounts to reversion cannot be accepted. 7.At the same time, the order of transfer impugned in this writ petition needs to be interfered with for the following reasons:- (i)It is a well settled proposition that in matters of transfer, the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited to examine whether the order of the transfer is either punitive or malafide or without jurisdiction or violates any statutory provisions. (ii)In the case on hand, though it is stated that the impugned order is made only on administrative grounds, in paragraph No.3(e) of the counter, it has been stated that the petitioner was transferred based on the lapses reported against him on the misconduct committed by him. It is stated that the third respondent made allegations of sexual harassment. The counter further proceeds to say that the Enquiry Committee conducted enquiry and dismissed the counter allegations made by the petitioner and also held that the petitioner has committed dereliction of duty and failed to take action against the workers, who committed irregularities in the department nor reported the irregularities to the higher authorities. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)The counter further states that “Complaints Committee” constituted under the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in “Vishaka Case” to enquire the allegation of sexual harassment has also reported that there is long-standing misunderstanding between the petitioner and the third respondent, which has reflected in the official career and spoiled the calm atmosphere and environment of the Department. 8.For these reasons, according to the counter, the petitioner was transferred. The narration of events and allegations made in the counter would go to show that the transfer impugned in this writ petition is not a transfer simplicitor on administrative grounds, but it has been made on certain allegations constituting serious misconduct. Thus, the impugned order of transfer is by way of a punitive measure. It is well settled that an order of transfer cannot be made by way of punitive measure without affording sufficient opportunity; without framing charge and without holding the individual guilty of the charges. On this ground alone, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of transfer. 9.The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that because of the pendency of the present writ petition, the complaints made by the third respondent in respect of the sexual harassment made by the petitioner have not been processed further by the authorities concerned. In my considered opinion, if the third respondent has got any grievance that the petitioner harassed her sexually, either inside or out side the work place, she can work out her remedies before the appropriate authority. Hence, the third respondent is at liberty to work out her remedies, dehors, the interference made by this Court in respect of the impugned transfer order. 10.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would vehemently oppose the writ petition. According to him, the fourth respondent has been unnecessarily dragged to this Court by making several allegations against him though he acted impartially during past in respect of certain administrative matters relating to the petitioner. 11.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is prepared to give up the fourth respondent as he is not a necessary party to this writ petition. The said statement is recorded. If the fourth respondent has got any grievance against the petitioner, he is at liberty to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. 12.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed in so far as the fourth respondent is concerned. However, in respect of the respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of transfer is set aside. It is made clear that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the first respondent is at liberty to pass fresh order of transfer on administrative grounds as against the petitioner, if so advised. It is further clarified that as stated in the counter, in paragraph No.3, the first respondent is at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, if there are materials for the same. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jbm To 1.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, coimbatore – 641 003. 2.The Dean, Agricultural Engineering College & Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore – 641 003. 3.The Director, Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabi Bagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal-462 038, M.P. +1 cc to Mr.S.J.Jagadev, Advocate, SR.No.39637 +1 cc to Mr.K.Rajasekaran, Advocate, SR.No.40000 +1 cc to Ms.D.Geetha, Advocate, SR.No.40445 W.P.No.6876 of 2008 PKB {CO} TP/28.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/