R. VEERARAGHAVAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF CO. OPERATIVE AUDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was working as a Record Clerk in the office of the 3rd respondent. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been working in the office of the 3rd respondent from 1.3.2008 till 4.8.2014 for a period of more than six years as Record Clerk. By the order impugned, the petitioner has been transferred from the office of the Assistant Director of Cooperative Audit, Erode and posted to work in the office of the Assistant Director of Cooperative Audit, Coimbatore by proceedings dated 31.7.2014 of the 1st respondent. He has been relieved from the control of the 3rd respondent by the proceedings dated 4.8.2014. Challenging the order dated 31.7.2014, passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 4.8.2014, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned has been passed during non -transferable period and it has been passed to accommodate the 4th respondent. The said order has also been passed by the 2nd respondent on the date of his retirement. In view of the above, the order impugned has been passed on malafide consideration. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is competent authority to pass the order impugned. The said order has been passed on the compliant made by the Assistant Director of Cooperative Audit, Erode viz., the 3rd respondent dated 1.6.2014. A perusal of the said complaint dated 1.6.2014 would show that the petitioner was stated to have not obeyed office procedures by breaching of moral obligation by providing office records to the third parties and alleged misuse of official records. Based upon the said complaint given by the 3rd respondent against whom no mala fides have been alleged the order of transfer has been passed. This would show that no malafide can be alleged against the 2nd respondent as he has acted upon complaint given by the 3rd respondent. In the said complaint, it has been stated that the petitioner was in the habit of doing unlawful activities for quite some time. The subsequent charge memo issued cannot be a bar for the earlier transfer. The earlier transfer order has been passed on administrative ground as it was felt by the respondents that his continuance would not be in public interest and also for the proper running of the administration.