AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
The petitioner is working as the Village Administrative Officer in the Pannian group villages. He was also holding additional charge for the Karumathur village. In the present writ petition, he has come forward to challenge an order of transfer issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti namely, the second respondent herein, dated 25.05.2011. In the order of transfer, it was stated that the District Collector namely, the first respondent had received a complaint from the village people of Pannian group villages that while granting flood relief to the village people, the petitioner has committed irregularities. Therefore, the District Collector directed the second respondent to take appropriate action on the basis of the complaint.
In the light of the above, the second respondent passed the impugned order on public interest and administrative reasons transferring the petitioner from the existing village Pannian group villages and Karumathur village additional charge to Vagurani group village with additional charge of Veppanoothu village in the place of one Radhakrishnan and the said Radhakrishnan was directed to be posted in the place of the petitioner. Challenging the said order of transfer, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The contention raised by the petitioner was that one Selvarajan who instigated the village people and signed the complaint was motivated and he was an expelled village menial of Pannian village and was acting as an agent in the village offices and taluk offices for getting patta and paying taxes to receive some certificates from the revenue authorities and has been conducting agency business. He has developed hostile on the petitioner and has made a baseless allegation. It is stated that the second respondent ought not to have relied upon the said complaint and effected transfer which in turn a punishment without being heard on the basis of the said allegation.
In the writ petition, notice of admission was ordered on 28.06.2011. On notice from this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer has filed a counter affidavit, dated 04.8.2011. In the counter affidavit, at page-3, it was stated as follows:
It is submitted that as per the Collector''s reference dated 23.05.2011 and a message over phone received on 23.05.2011 from the Collector, Madurai in regard to the allegation of the Villagers of Pannian Village to the 2nd respondent. He has issued proceedings transferring the petitioner to Vagurani group village with additional charge of Veppanoothu village in this office Na.Ka.No.891/2011/B2, dated 25.05.2011. Consequent on the joining of Thiru.Radha Krishnan as Village Administrative Officer, Pannian with additional charge of Karumathur, the petitioner is presumed to have been relieved from his duty villages Pannian and Additional charge as Marumathur. While conducting the mass contact day at Ariyapatti villagebytheDistrictCollector,Madurai,thepetitionerThiru.O.Manickam who asked to call on by the District Collector on the day has stayed away from duty from 24.05.2011 for which show cause notice was issued to him calling for his explanation for his unauthorized absence. The transfer orders issued in Na.Ka.No.891/2011/A1, dated 25.05.2011 is just and reasonableandalsosustainableasperlawadmissible.
Therefore, it cannot said that the there was no absolute material against the petitioner is being disturbed from the existing village and the averments made in the counter affidavit by the Revenue Divisional Officer reproduced above also shows that the District Collector wanted to enquire him, he himself scarce and absented himself. When the authorities at the head of the District receives complaint, it is not as if they are powerless in taking action against their subordinates, the action can range from suspension, charge sheet followed by an enquiry are so as to assert the feelings of the village people shifted the person from one place to another place. In that process, the petitioner is not a loser, his status and emoluments are always guaranteed and though the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that his client to stand for a trial to prove the complaint was baseless and if he desires, he can always make a request to the District Collector and thereafter, it is for the District Collector to decide and it should be the mode for enquiring into the complaint. It is suffice, if there is any prima facie truth in the complaint, it is open to the District Collector to order his subordinates to take appropriate action against the persons including the village level officials. Merely because the transfer was effected on the basis of a representation sent by the villagers which will not make the transfer as a punishment or invalidating its use as surreptitious for imposing such penalty.
Under these circumstances, this Court is not convinced. There is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.