G. Rajan vs The Additional Director General of Police

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner was formerly working as a Grade -I Constable in the Central Prison at Palayamkottai. The first respondent, by his proceedings in Order No. 1010/E.W.3/2013, dated 01.04.2013 transferred the petitioner to Coimbatore Central Prison on administrative grounds. A consequential order was issued by the second respondent, by his proceedings in No. 426/Po 1/2013 dated 06.04.2013. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 5841 of 2013. It is stated that initially, an order of stay was granted in the said writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he did not report for duty at the Central Prison, Coimbatore. Ultimately, the writ petition came to be dismissed by a learned single Judge sitting at Madurai Bench on 07.10.2013.

Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No. 1255 of 2013, which was again dismissed by a Division Bench on 16.12.2013. However, on considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench permitted the petitioner to make a representation to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. Based on the said observation made by the Division Bench, the petitioner made yet another representation seeking re-transfer. The second respondent, by his proceedings in No. Ref. No. 3061/Po.4/14, dated 28.3.2014 rejected the said request made by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

This writ petition has come up today for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the records carefully.

At the outset, I have to state that transfer is an incident of service. Earlier when the petitioner challenged his transfer from Palayamkottai to Coimbatore, the Madurai Bench of this Court dismissed the same, thereby confirming the order of transfer and that was affirmed by the Division Bench as well. That means the order of transfer is not unjustifiable, illegal or irregular. When that be so, the petitioner cannot demand that he should be again re-transferred to Palayamkottai. Because of the request made by the petitioner, the Division Bench gave liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation. It does not mean that it was a positive direction issued by the Division Bench to authorities to re-transfer him to Palayamkottai. The said request has been duly considered by the second respondent and the same has been rejected, in which, I do not find any infirmity at all.

In view of the same, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.