LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-61

A SRINIVASAN Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER PERSONAL

Decided On August 30, 2011
A.SRINIVASAN Appellant
V/S
CHIEF ENGINEER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the impugned order of transfer passed by the first respondent, transferring the petitioner from the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondi, Thiruvallur, to the office of the Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle/South.

(2.) THE petitioner, after joining as Assisting Helper in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Perunagar, Kancheepuram District, which is under the control of the second respondent, was promoted as Helper in the year 1995. Again, after two years, he was transferred and posted in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Rural Thiruvallur. THEreafter, in the year 2001, he was promoted as Wireman and continued to work in the same office. Whileso, by an order dated 26.02.2011, he was transferred from the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Rural Thiruvallur, to the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondi, Thiruvallur/fourth respondent herein. THErefore, in the light of the transfer order, he was relieved from service on 02.03.2011 and consequently joined the said office at Poondi. While he was working as Wireman in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondi, Thiruvallur District, which is under the control of the fourth respondent, once again, he was issued with transfer order, which is impugned in the present writ petition, by the first respondent, transferring and posting the petitioner to the Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle/South. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the impugned transfer order dated 19.03.2011 cannot be passed within three weeks from the earlier transfer order dated 26.02.2011. However, when the petitioner, on receiving frequent orders of transfer, made a representation to the respondents through proper channel on 31.03.2011, explaining his grievances and difficulties for joining duty at the above said circle office at Coimbatore, with a request to reconsider the impugned order of transfer, the respondents, without considering the bonafide request of the petitioner, directed him to join at Coimbatore Circle by issuing relieving order dated 31.03.2011.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that when the petitioner was working as Wireman in the office of the Assistant Engineer (O&M), Poondi, Thiruvallur District/fourth respondent herein, he has committed misconduct by extending the supply of metro water 24 hrs. feeder supply to some other selective consumers for the use in Domestic and Commercial services. When the said misconduct was brought to light to the second respondent through serious of allegations received from the other local consumers, the second respondent has himself inspected the spot and found the allegations as true and thereupon, the petitioner was warned not to repeat the same. Subsequently, though the said misconduct was punishable under the Standing Orders, in order to keep the industrial harmony, no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner, but as a measure of keeping persons under discipline and control, the second respondent instructed the third respondent to transfer the petitioner and accordingly, the third respondent transferred the petitioner from Rural/Thiruvallur to Poondi section within the same sub-division, which is just 2 kms. away from the earlier place. Subsequently, the present impugned transfer order came to be passed, based on the Vigilance enquiry conducted by the TNEB Vigilance Cell, on the basis of serious allegations, involving the petitioner along with one Junior Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, had indulged in pedalling money for effecting service connections to the consumers in Thiruvallur Division itself i.e., the second respondent circle. Therefore, it was decided to take action against the delinquents through disciplinary proceedings. On that basis, in the interest of administrative reasons, the first respondent has transferred all the employees involving in such bad practise, for the purpose of maintaining harmony, smoother administration of the board. The impugned order of transfer was thus effected in view of the fact that because of his continuous stay at one division, namely 11 years, he has acquired extensive contact at various levels including the money pedalling elements. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer came to be passed within a period of one week from the earlier order, which is purely on the administrative reasons and not as stated by the petitioner, and on that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.