P. Dhanasekaran vs The Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, The Deputy Director of Health Services, The Block Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre and Latha Baskaran

P. Jyothimani, J.—The writ Petitioner was working as a Health Inspector in the Primary Health Centre at E. Pudupatti, Theni District, and under the impugned order, dated 14.10,.2009, passed by the 1st Respondent, he was transferred and posted at the Primary Health Centre, Varusanadu, Theni District. The transfer order is challenged by the Petitioner on various grounds, including that he underwent cardiac surgery on 06.10.2009 while working at E. Pudupatti and the transfer under the impugned order on which he is posted at Varusanadu, a hill area, is detrimental to his health condition. That apart, according to the Petitioner, even though under the impugned order it is stated it is an administrative transfer, it is actually punitive in nature in which event necessary opportunity must be given to him before effecting transfer.

In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent, it is specifically stated that many complaints have been received against the Petitioner, including that he has not attended any field visit and also he has not taken any preventive measure on viral fever and AGE cases which affected the village. It is also stated that the transfer of the Petitioner has been effected under the impugned order as per the allegations received against him by Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine.

Paragraph No. 4 of the Counter Affidavit, which reads as follows,

"4. It is submitted that the Petitioners Thiru P. Dhanasekaran, Health Inspector E. Pudupatti Government Primary Health Centre is transferred and posted to Varusanadu Government Primary Health Centre of Theni Health Unit District vide Na.Ka.9228/MP4/S1/09, dated 14.10.2009 as per the allegation received against him by Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine...."

in clear terms shows that the impugned order of transfer has been effected on certain allegations. It also appears that the 4th Respondent, who happens to be the Panchayat President, has also given certain complaints about the functioning of the Petitioner, which had culminated into passing of the impugned order of transfer. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer, even though it is stated that it has been made on administrative grounds, as it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent, has been passed on the basis of certain complaints. If so, the Petitioner is entitled to submit his explanation to such allegations. The proper procedure is that charges must be framed against him and an opportunity must be given to him before passing any final orders.

In such view of the matter, on the basis of the counter affidavit, there is No. difficulty to conclude that the impugned order is punitive in nature and, therefore, it cannot be held to be administrative in character. It is brought to the notice of the Court that by virtue of an order of stay granted by this Court, the Petitioner is continuing at Primary Health Centre at E. Pudupatti.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order of transfer is set aside, however, giving liberty to Respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the allegations made against the Petitioner, in the manner known to law, if so advised. No. costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2009 is closed.