M. Ravinder vs State Of Telangana And 3 Others

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the transfer order dt.29.01.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent as being against the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.182 dt.21.05.2016.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Panchayat Secretary, Grade-II at Kanakamamidi Village and later he was transferred to Veljarla Village Gram Panchayat on 12.11.2019 on promotion. The petitioner was working as Panchayat Secretary, Grade-II at Veljarla Village of Farooq Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from 12.11.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner’s wife is working as a school teacher in Kanakamamidi High School at Kanakamamidi Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner made a request to transfer him to Kanakamamidi Village on spouse ground. However, his request was not considered and therefore, the petitioner applied for long leave from 19.11.2019 to take care of his six weeks old daughter who was residing with her mother and who was not well. It is submitted that thereafter, there was Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown and thereafter, the petitioner reported for duty to the Panchayat Raj Commissioner only on 22.10.2020. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dt.28.09.2019 with regard to a layout demolition at Kanakamamidi Village which allegedly happened in the month of July, 2019. The petitioner is stated to have submitted an explanation to the charge memo. It is submitted that while the investigation was under process, the petitioner was transferred from Veljarla Village to Jogulamba-Gadwal District vide proceedings dt.28.11.2020. Since the distance between Jogulamba-Gadwal District and Kanakamamidi Village is approximately 250 k.ms., and the petitioner’s wife was living alone with two daughters and the petitioner’s old parents with her, the petitioner again sought transfer from Jogulamba-Gadwal District to Ranga Reddy District. Meanwhile the enquiry proceedings were concluded and an enquiry report was submitted on 21.11.2020 and vide proceedings dt.29.01.2021, the petitioner has been transferred from Jogulamba-Gadwal District to Sangareddy District. Challenging the transfer orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

The case of the petitioner is that his transfer order is passed as a punishment and not on administrative exigencies. He submits that transfers can only be made on administrative exigencies and not as a measure of punishment. For this proposition, he places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others (2009) 2 SCC 592. He further submits that since the enquiry report has already been submitted and no action has been taken thereafter, his transfer order to Sangareddy District, which is also far away from Kanakamamidi Village where his wife, old parents and minor children are living, is bad in law.

Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand, relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submits that where disciplinary proceedings are pending, posting orders to employees shall be issued in clear existing vacancies without shifting other employees. He submits that this transfer order has been passed strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.81, dt.18.06.2018. He submits that the petitioner’s continuation in Ranga Reddy District would be detrimental to the smooth administration of public. Therefore, he has been transferred to Sangareddy District which is nearer to Kanakamamidi Village as compared to Jogulamba-Gadwal District. Thus, according to him, the request of the petitioner has been considered while transferring the petitioner to Sangareddy District and the petitioner should not have any grievance to the same.

Sri Siripuram Kaumud, learned counsel representing M/s. Chandrasen Law Offices, learned counsel for the petitioner had also places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 171, wherein the difficulties placed by the employee therein with regard to his transfer to a place far away from his family, have been considered and directions were given to reinstate the petitioner therein without back wages but with continuity of service.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that this is a case of transfer and not termination of services. Admittedly, there were charges against the petitioner with regard to misconduct in discharge of his official duties. However, as seen from the counter affidavit filed, the enquiry report has already been submitted and the only remaining action is passing of an order by the disciplinary authority. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others (1 supra), transfer order cannot be an order of punishment. The disciplinary authority, if satisfied with regard to the charges against the petitioner, would have to impose punishment which is enumerated in the service rules and transfer is not one of the punishments enumerated therein. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that transfer is not a punishment. Therefore, such punishment cannot be sustained. However, it is the respondents who can post the petitioner in any existing vacancy in Ranga Reddy District as per the administrative exigency only.

In view thereof, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dt.29.01.2021 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the respondents requesting to consider his case for transfer to a place nearer to Kanakamamidi Village where his wife is working, within a period of 15 days from today and on such representation being made, the respondents shall take a decision thereon within a period of two weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not reported for duty at Sangareddy. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is on leave. The period from today till the petitioner’s representation is disposed of by the respondents, i.e., four weeks from today shall be considered as leave due to the petitioner.

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand closed.