ANDM.P.NOS.1 TO 3 OF 2006 v. The Commissioner for Municipal Administration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.09.2007 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.31951 OF 2006ANDM.P.NOS.1 TO 3 OF 2006S.Ravichandran.. PetitionerVs.1.The Commissioner for Municipal Administration, Municipal Administration Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.2.The Municipal Commissioner, Kancheepuram Municipality, Kancheepuram & Dist.3.The Municipal Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality, Villupuram & Dist... Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in hisproceedings ROC No.36731/2005/F1, dated 5.8.2006 transferring and postingthe petitioner from Kancheepuram Municipality to Villupuram Municipalityand the consequential order of the second respondent in his proceedingsNa.Ka.No.6629-2006-E2, dated 9.8.2006 and quash the same and to direct therespondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service of the secondrespondent under the Tamil Nadu Municipal Engineering Subordinates ServiceRules, 1970. For Petitioner : Mr.R.KrishnanFor Respondents: Mr.N.Senthilkumar, AGP for R1 Mr.P.Srinivas for R3 Mr.K.Elango for R2ORDERIn this writ petition, a challenge is made to an order oftransfer of the petitioner from Kancheepuram Municipality to VillupuramMunicipality by proceedings of the first respondent in ROCNo.36731/2005/F1, dated 5.8.2006.2.The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. Thecourt heard the learned counsel on either side. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The petitioner is working as Meter Reader in the second respondentMunicipality. On certain allegations, an order of transfer, transferringhim from Kancheepuram Municipality to Villupuram Municipality, was servedupon him. The grievance of the petitioner is that only on the basis ofuntenable and false allegations, the order of transfer has been made. Whenthe orders were passed, he was working as Meter Reader. Since he wassuffering from Jaundice, he was applying for medical leave. He was calledupon to appear for medical examination, which he could not do. On5.8.2006, the present order was served upon him, transferring him toVillupuram Municipality in the existing vacancy. It was served upon himonly on 31.8.2006. Challenging the same, this writ petition has beenbrought forth. 4.In support of the writ petition, the learned counsel for thepetitioner stressed on two points. Firstly, all the allegations made,pursuant to which transfer was made, were baseless and hence, transferorder should not have been passed. Secondly, if at all any transfer was tobe made, it should have been within the same Municipality and not outside.But, in the instant case, he has been transferred from KancheepuramMunicipality to Villupuram Municipality, which is in violation of the Ruleto be followed in respect of transfer and hence, the order of transfer hasgot to be struck down. Added further the learned counsel that originally,there was an order of transfer of the petitioner from KancheepuramMunicipality to Villupuram Municipality on the very same allegation ofcorrupt practices and that was subsequently cancelled by the DistrictCollector by an order, dated 26.12.2005 and thus, it would be quite clearthat the respondents have committed malice and under these circumstances,the impugned order has got to be set aside. 5.In answer to the above, the learned counsel for the respondentswould submit that while the petitioner was working as Meter Reader inKancheepuram Municipality, several allegations that he was demanding bribefor tap connections were made; that the first respondent has sought forreport from the second respondent about the allegations; that thoseallegations were verified and the second respondent has sent a detailedreport on 31.7.2006 and on the strength of the said report, it appearsthat the first respondent has passed the impugned order; that thepetitioner evaded the service; that he applied for medical leave; that hefailed to report before the third respondent; that while the matter stoodthus, he has approached this court and has obtained interim stay; that hewas transferred under Rule 31(c) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal GeneralRules, 1970; that a reading of the same would clearly reveal that theorder of transfer is perfectly correct and valid and hence, the writpetition has got to be dismissed. 6.From the submissions made, it would be quite clear that thepetitioner was working as Meter Reader in Kancheepuram Municipality. By anorder under challenge, he was transferred to Villupuram Municipality.Despite service of the same, he has not reported duty, but he applied formedical leave. Pending same, he approached this court and got an order ofinterim stay. It is not in controversy that the post is one transferrablein nature. According to the Department, there were allegations of corruptpractice and the second respondent has made a detailed enquiry and gave a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ report to the first respondent. On the strength of the same, he wastransferred. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitionerwould submit that even if he was to be transferred, he could betransferred within the same Municipality and not outside. He relied onthe rules in Tamil Nadu Municipal Engineering (Subordinates) ServiceRules, 1970 and submit that there are special rules available and it isprevailing the regular rule and thus, the petitioner would come underClass No.8 and hence, he could be transferred within the Municipality andnot outside. 7.On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents broughtthe notice of the court Rule 31(c), which reads as follows:"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(b), theDirector of Municipal Administration or such other authority towhom power may be delegated may transfer a member of a servicefrom one Municipality to another."After comparison of the rules, the court is of the considered opinion thatit is a fit case where he could be transferred under Rule 31(c), asapplied by the Authority and on the allegations made and on the reportfiled, the Director of Municipal Administration has transferred him fromKancheepuram Municipality to Villupuram Municipality. This court is unableto notice any malice also. Since it is a transferrable post and no maliceis noticed, the order of transfer cannot be questioned under thesecircumstances. Further, from the materials available, it could be seenthat there was originally an order of transfer and the same was cancelledby the District Collector, by an order, dated 26.12.2005. It is pertinentto point out that whether there was any report called for on theallegations made against the petitioner and whether they were consideredor not does not find place in the order of the District Collector. Now, itis brought to the notice of the court that the first respondent has notimmediately acted on the complaint, but has called for the report from thesecond respondent and on the basis of the report, he has acted and underthese circumstances, no malice, in the opinion of the court, could beattributed to the first respondent while passing the order underchallenge. 8.Under these circumstances, the writ petition fails and the same isdismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are also dismissed.vvkSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Commissioner for Municipal Administration, Municipal Administration Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.2.The Municipal Commissioner, Kancheepuram Municipality, Kancheepuram & Dist.3.The Municipal Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality, Villupuram & Dist.+ One cc to Mr. K. Elango, Advocates SR 58085+ One cc o mr. P. Srinivas, Advocate sR 57751+ One cc to Mr. R. Krishnan, Advocate sR 57790+ One cc to Govt Pleader SR 57781TS (co)sg 21/9/07W.P.NO.31951 OF 2006