R PERACHI Vs. HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Sheristadar in the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi from 15.10.2001 and he being the senior most, he was kept in additional charge of the post of P.A. to the District Judge, Tuticorin, which fell vacant from 1.5.2006, by the orders of the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, dated 28.4.2006. He continued in the additional charge till 20.9.2006.

(2.) IN the meantime, an unsigned anonymous petition was received by the High Court, including the Registrar Vigilance, stated to be from 'the Judicial employees of the Thoothukudi District', on 2.1.2006, against P.A. to the District Judge, Sheristadar, Head Clerk, Central Nazir of the District Court, Thoothukudi and Sheristadar of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thoothukudi alleging that they all are corrupt and they have formed themselves into rival groups in order to be dominant, as a result of which, the administration is suffering. The said complaint was forwarded to the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi for being dealt with by him and for submitting a report thereon to the Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras. Accordingly, the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, has submitted his report in D.No.3616, dated 28.4.2006. As could be seen from the files submitted before us, the said communication of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi reads as follows:

(3.) THE petitioner would further submit that all of a sudden, the second respondent, by order dated 19.9.2006 transferred him along with the said Kuttiappa Esakki and one T.K.Sankar to other Districts; that the other two persons, who were transferred along with him filed writ petitions, challenging the transfer order and he was given to understand that there were number of anonymous petitions against the candidates vying for the post of P.A. to the District Judge and in that connection, the second respondent was constrained to issue transfer orders on administrative grounds; that the second respondent is well within his powers to transfer any employee from one district to another district on administrative grounds and there was no malafide exercise in the present transfers, however, the respondents 3 and 4 were left out though they too were the candidates and in any case, one cannot challenge the transfers, but the same shall not have the effect of obliterating the lien he holds and his right to be considered for promotion as P.A. to the District Judge, Thoothukudi.