K MURALI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of transfer dated 10.06.2011 passed by the first respondent, by which the petitioner was transferred from Tiruppur (North) Traffic Police Station to Nilgiris District on adminsitrative grounds i.e., from one range to another range, which according to the petitioner is legally not sustainable.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was upgraded as Special Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 01.01.2011 and he was serving as Special Sub Inspector of Police in the Tiruppur (North) Police Station without giving any room for any complaint. On completion of his three years term in Tirupur North Police Station, by a general order of transfer, he was transferred to Kamanaicken Palayam Police Station, Pollachi Sub-Division on 17.05.2011 and he also joined duty on 01.06.2011. According to the petitioner, he has not come to any adverse notice or remarks by the department, while so, the impugned order of transfer dated 10.06.2011 was issued to him transferring him from one range to another range namely from Kamanaicken Palayam, Tiruppur Sub Division to The Nilgiris District on administrative grounds. According to the petitioner, only on 17.05.2011, he was transferred to Kamanaicken Palayam and he joined the said place on 01.06.2011, while so, the impugned order of transfer dated 10.06.2011 is punitive in nature and it is in violation of all canons of law. According to the petitioner, he cannot be transferred to neighbouring district on administrative grounds, hence, the impugned order of transfer is nothing but a punitive one and it is liable to be set aside.

(3.) I heard the counsel for both sides. The only ground of attack made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order does not give any specific reasons for transfer and it merely states that it was passed on administrative grounds. However, in the counter affidavit of the first respondent, for the first time, certain allegations were made against the petitioner for transfer to the Nilgiris District as a measure of punishment. If there are any allegations as against the petitioner, the respondents ought to have conducted disciplinary proceedings and the impugned order transfer is unsustainable in law. Further, if the petitioner had come to any adverse notice, as claimed by the respondents, he should have been issued with a notice, conducted enquiry by adherence to the principles of natural justice and in the absence of the same, the impugned order of transfer can be construed as one passed as a measure of punishment and it is punitive in nature.