LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-99

MADHU Vs. THEREGIONAL DIRECTORMUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

Decided On November 19, 2014
MADHU Appellant
V/S
Theregional Directormunicipal Administration Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner, who joined the municipal services as Sanitary Worker in the year 1989, was promoted to the post of Sanitary Supervisor in the year 1991 and according to him, he has been working in that post from the year 1991 with utmost sincerity and without blemish. However, the second respondent vide proceedings dated 15.5.2014, has transferred him from Attur Division I to Division V and the petitioner had also accepted the same and was working in that capacity. While so, the petitioner was issued with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 26.5.2014, transferring him from Attur Division V to Edappadi Municipality and the second respondent has also relieved him from that post on 4.6.2014. However, within a short span of two days, the first respondent vide proceedings dated 6.6.2014, has transferred him from Attur to Mettur and the distance in between the said place is more than 110 kms. In terms of the proceedings passed by the first respondent, the second respondent has also relieved the petitioner from the services on 10.6.2014, and challenging the legality of the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition stating among other things, that he was subjected to frequent transfer within a span of two days and the impugned order of transfer is nothing but mechanical and that the so -called administrative reason is incongruous.

(3.) IT is the further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that in such a kind of situation, the impugned order of transfer, on the face of it, is unsustainable and in support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in : (2009) 2 SCC 592 (Somesh Tiwari V. Union of India and Others), wherein it has been held that the judicial review of transfer is permissible if it is done in malafide exercise of power and the transfer is punitive.