G. CHAKKARAVARTHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1028 of 2019. The appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the transfer order and the consequential order of fifth respondent dated 12.01.2019 relieving the appellant.

(2.) The appellant while in service as Assistant Commissioner of Police (L & O), Palayamkottai Sub Division, Tirunelveli city, was transferred and brought to V.R. at Chief Office, Control Room, Chennai, by the impugned order dated 12.01.2019. In the same order, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tirunelveli, was directed to hold full additional charge of the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police (L & O), Palayamkottai Sub Division, Tirunelveli City, with immediate effect. The fifth respondent was requested to relieve the appellant and to report Chief Office. Consequently, the fifth respondent by the impugned communication dated 12.01.2019 instructed the appellant to relieve immediately on 12.01.2019 so that the post be handed over to Thiru.K.Paramasivan, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City as the full additional charge of the post of Assistant Commissioner (L&O), Palayamkottai Sub Division, Tirunelveli City. From the order itself it is seen that the transfer is not a simple transfer for administrative reasons. Since the appellant was brought to V.R. (Vacancy reserved) while directing another officer to hold full additional charge of the post that was held by the appellant, the transfer was challenged in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1028 of 2019 mainly on the ground of legal mala fides apart from contending that the order of transfer is punitive in nature. The learned Single Judge of this Court recording the fact that the department had decided to move the petitioner out of Tirunelveli in view of the controversy relating to recovery of certain gold jewels from an individual, dismissed the Writ Petition observing that it is better for the petitioner to stay away from Tirunelveli so that an enquiry would be conducted in a fair and free manner. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition the above Writ Appeal is filed.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant narrated some events which according to him prompted the respondents to transfer the appellant and to keep him away from the department. Before considering the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General, it is necessary to record the pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fifth respondent.