M MARIMUTHU Vs. DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the order of the second respondent dated 12.11.2010 issued in Se.Mu.Ka.No.11235/A2/2010 and the subsequent proceedings issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.53401/2010/C2 dated 01.12.2010.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in Treasuries and Accounts Department as per the orders passed by the Treasury Officer, Salem on 15.07.1986. THE petitioner is presently working as Office Assistant in the Sub-Treasury Office, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.

(3.) MR.G.Sankaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been served with the impugned transfer order only on the basis of certain complaints said to have been preferred by the Tamil Nadu Government Servants and Teachers Joint Action Committee, Rasipuram Taluk and without affording any opportunity, by way of punishment. It is contended that though in the impugned order it is stated that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative reasons, the counter filed by the second respondent reveals that the petitioner has been transferred only on the basis of the said complaints, for which the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to put forth his case. It is further contended that the petitioner also brought to the notice of the respondents about the serious ailment namely Varicose Veins which resulted in undergoing a surgery and the petitioner sought for the cancellation of the earlier transfer order dated 12.11.2010, transferring the petitioner from Rasipuram to Namakkal. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of canceling the said transfer order on the basis of medical grounds, the respondents once again issued an another order dated 01.12.2010, shifting the petitioner to a far off place namely to Tiruppur and as such, it is very clear that the transfer is not made on administrative grounds, but only with a view to punish the petitioner. It is contended that the reading of the counter makes it very clear that the impugned transfer order was passed due to the malafide exercise of the power by the authorities. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned orders of transfer are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, would place reliance on the following decisions: