Writ Petition No. 24983 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

first respondent herein. At present, he is working in the Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project (RTPP). Through order, dated 01.10.2010, the first respondent transferred him to another unit at Hampi Power House under the control of Superintending Engineer/O&M/TBHES. The petitioner challenges the same. He contends that the order is vindictive and certain replies given by him to the letter addressed by the Superintending Engineer, the third respondent herein, were taken as offensive. It is submitted that he is falsely implicated in tripping of unit and other problems in RTPP. The difficulty on account of transfer in the middle of the academic year, is also pleaded. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to them, the petitioner is in the habit of taking on the superiors, so much so, in the context of an application filed by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he went to the extent of challenging the very functioning of the National Information Commission.

Reference is made to a letter issued by their counsel, who represented them in Appeal No.247 of 2006 as to the exception taken by the Commission about the behaviour of the petitioner. is alleged that the petitioner failed to discharge his functions when the Unit at RTPP tripped and instead of attending to the matter, he went on challenging the authority and the functioning of his superiors. The loss that occurred on account of his negligence is also indicated. Heard Sri B.Venkatadari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondents. The order of transfer is clear as to the circumstances, under which, it came to be made. Detailed reference is made to the acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner, ever since the Unit – 2 Generator Stator in RTPP tripped. It is ultimately mentioned that a departmental enquiry is proposed against the petitioner and to facilitate the same, the petitioner is transferred.

Whenever an organization intends to conduct departmental enquiry and it feels that the presence of the employee at that place is prone to hamper the enquiry, two options are open to it –the first one is to place the employee under suspension and the second one is to transfer him to a different place. The second option is always beneficial to the employee. any objection is taken to it and an order passed in that behalf is found fault with, the freedom of the employer to have recourse to the first option remains in tact. The petitioner could have assailed the order of transfer, if it is silent as to the reasons, by alleging that it is a camouflaged exercise. Once the order itself makes it manifest that it is passed to prevent him from interfering with the enquiry, the petitioner cannot find fault with it. If his contention is to be accepted, the respondents may have to suspend the petitioner. So far as the place to which the petitioner is transferred that is not in dispute i.e., it is one of the units of the first respondent.

As of now, several employees of the first respondent are working at that place. Viewed from any angle, this Court finds no basis for interfering with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Date:07.10.2010 VGB ___________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.