Madras High Court
J.Antony Michael Raj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 September, 2015
Bench: R.Sudhakar, V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.09.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.A.(MD)No.939 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015
J.Antony Michael Raj .. Appellant
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By the Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Padukkapathu,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Headmaster,
Government High School,
Chennamareddiyapatti,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 24.08.2015, made in W.P.(MD)No.15147 of 2015.
!For Appellant ... Mr.R.Balakrishnan
^For Respondents ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian
Special Government Pleader
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by V.M.VELUMANI, J.,) This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 24.08.2015, passed in W.P.(MD)No.15147 of 2015.
2. The appellant was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent School from 1997. He had stated in his affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, that he is looking after his 80 years aged mother. She is suffering from kidney failure for the past six years. His wife is working as Secondary Grade Teacher at St.Joseph Middle School, Chettivilai, Sathankulam Taluk. She is also suffering from cardiac problem.
3. While so, all of a sudden, the second respondent, by the impugned transfer order in Na.Ka.No.2226/A2/2015, dated 16.08.2015, transferred the appellant from the third respondent School to fourth respondent School. The reason for the transfer is that the second respondent received a complaint from the Parents and Teachers Association. The respondents 2 and 3 did not conduct any enquiry. The fourth respondent School is 160 Kilometres far away from the native place of the appellant. There are no transport facilities from the native place to the School. The transfer order is punitive in nature. Therefore, he has filed W.P.(MD) No.15147 of 2015, to quash the transfer order, dated 16.08.2015.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader stated that the appellant was working in the third respondent School for more than 17 years. The Parents Teachers Association has given a complaint against the appellant and FIR is also pending against him. The appellant was transferred only on administrative grounds and it cannot be said to be punitive in nature.
5. The learned Single Judge considering the fact that the appellant was working in the same School for more than 17 years, a complaint was received from the Parents and Teachers Association against the appellant, rejected the contentions of the appellant that the transfer is punitive in nature.
6. The learned Single Judge held that when serious allegations are pending against the employee, he can be transferred in the interest of public to a place, where there is an existing vacancy. For these reasons, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Against the said order, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the order of transfer is punitive in nature. The appellant has to travel more than 160 kilometers from his native place and there is no transport facility to the School. The appellant has to look after his aged mother and ailing wife. No enquiry was conducted in respect of the complaint received against the appellant.
8. We have perused the materials on record and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9. There is no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. From the materials, it is seen that the appellant was working in the same School for more than 17 years. FIR is pending against the appellant. A complaint was received from the Parents and Teachers Association against the appellant. The learned Single Judge considered the Exception to General Rule, which reads as follows:
?In case where serious allegations are pending enquiry, when it is considered necessary in the public interest, and sufficient in lieu of suspension, the officer may be transferred ? in such cases, transfer shall be effected to a vacant post in another station or to the post where the junior most person of the same category is working.?
10. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the contentions of the appellant that he has to look after his ailing mother and his wife, as a reason for setting aside the transfer order. We find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.
11. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the appellant to give a representation to the second respondent to transfer him to any other place, if he so desires.
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi.
3.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Padukkapathu, Thoothukudi District.
4.The Headmaster, Government High School, Chennamareddiyapatti, Thoothukudi District.
.