C. NAVANEETHA KRISHNAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 04. 12. 2019, transferring the petitioner to Vijayawada and the consequential relieving order passed by the 2nd dated 09. 12. 2019.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Salesman in the respondent Society at Pollachi Showroom. The petitioner claims that he suffered a fracture in the backbone and as a result of which, he underwent a surgery and therefore he was not able to attend to the work. The petitioner had sought for leave right from the year 2018 onwards. In the meantime, the respondent Society rejected the leave application submitted by the petitioner and a Charge Memo came to be issued against the petitioner on 19. 06. 2019, on the ground that he has unauthorizedly absented himself. The petitioner was also suspended from service. Later, the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was transferred by virtue of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent to the Showroom at Visakhapatnam. This order and the consequent relieving order has become a subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) Mr. C. Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was suffering from back ailment and the same is evident from the Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Board on 15. 12. 2018. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is yet to recover and he is not even in a position to stand and work continuously. Therefore, the petitioner had sought for privilege leave. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent Society had initiated disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence of the petitioner and kept him under suspension. The learned counsel submitted that the transfer order passed by the 3rd respondent is in the nature of a punishment and this was passed inspite of the respondent Society being aware of the fact that the petitioner is facing serious ailment. The learned counsel submitted that there are vacancies that are available at Coimbatore and the respondents can be directed to consider the request made by the petitioner to retain him in any of the Showrooms at Coimbatore.