Govindaraj vs The General Manager (O&A) on 4 January, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Govindaraj vs The General Manager (O&A) on 4 January, 2018

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 04.01.2018  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN              

W.P(MD)No.21666 of 2017   
and 
WMP(MD)Nos.17960 & 17961 of 2017     

Govindaraj                                                                 ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The General Manager (O&A),  
   State Express Transport Corporation
        (Tamilnadu) Ltd,
   Pallavan Salai,
   Chennai ? 600 002.

2.The Branch Manager,  
   State Express Transport Corporation
        (Tamilnadu) Ltd,  Trichy.

3.State Express Transport
        Corporation(Tamilnadu) Ltd,
   Pallavan Salai,
   Chennai ? 600 002.
   Rep.by its Managing Director.                             ... Respondents

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to the impugned transfer order of the first respondent in respect of
the petitioner in order No.058773/HR4/SETC/TN/2013/4233 dated 30.10.2017 in 
respect  of the petitioner and consequential relieving order of the second
respondent in his Memo No.1764/m2/mtpNghf/jpU/17 dated 13.11.2017 and quash    
the same and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner
to work in the present place ie., Trichy branch of the respondent
corporation.

!For Petitioner                 : Mr.V.Kannan

^For Respondents        : Mr.K.Sathyasingh 
                                        


:ORDER

The petitioner was appointed as a Driver cum Conductor in the respondent corporation. He was transferred to Trichy branch on 18.04.2016.

2.It was alleged that the writ petitioner had committed some misconduct. He was therefore suspended from service by order dated 17.08.2017. He was however reinstated on 23.10.2017 and thereafter transferred from Trichy to Tanjore. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2016 (2) CWC 186 (S.Ramasamy v. The Director of Town Panchayats) contended that if an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is illegal and liable to be set aside.

4.The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand relied on a subsequent decision of this Court dated 11.09.2017 in WP(MD)No.17069 of 2017. This Court had held that in order to avoid prolonged suspension, an employee can be reinstated and transferred to some other place. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the transfer was not in liew of punishment, but only to avoid suspension. Further, the writ petitioner has after all been transferred from Trichy to Tanjore. The distance between the two is a mere 50 Kilometers. I find no infirmity in the impugned order of transfer.

5.This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court