Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Prl. Chief Conservator Of Forests vs M.Jagadeesh Chandra Prasad, on 15 October, 2019
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J K Maheshwari
THE CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
AND
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
WRIT APPEALNo.325 of 2019
JUDGMENT:(per J.K. MAHESHWARI, CJ) Learned Govt. Pleader for Services I for the appellants. Assailing the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.11464 of 2019 quashing the order of transfer of petitioner, the department has filed this writ appeal.
A perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge reveals that the order of transfer was quashed, because it does not spell-out any reason. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed order dated 24.09.2018 in O.A.No.1560 of 2018. Before the Tribunal, the department has withdrawn the order of transfer upon finding violation of G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 24.06.2019. However, considering the same and without affording an opportunity, and asking a reply from other side, the order impugned has been passed.
After hearing learned counsel for the department as well as the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner (respondent No.1), it is to observe here that, as per G.O.Ms.No.45, an employee can be transferred either on request or also on administrative grounds. The order of transfer reflects that the employee was transferred on account of administrative reasons. In cases of transfer, assigning a reason by the department is not necessary. It is further to observe that interference in the matter of transfer can be made if it is in violation of the statutory provisions of law, or tainted with mala fides or when it is passed affecting service condition or by way of penalty. Looking at the order of transfer, no exigencies are revealed, and no ground of mala fide is available as per the averments made in the petition. In that view of the matter, interference as made by the learned single Judge merely 2 on the ground of non-spelling out the reason or, before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, the previous order of transfer of the petitioner was withdrawn, may not be a ground for interference, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the foregoing, the order impugned passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. However, it is open to the employee concerned to approach to the employer asking cancellation/modification of the transfer, by submitting representation, in which event, the employer may consider the same in accordance with the existing policy.
With the aforesaid, this writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the miscellaneous applications shall stand disposed of.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI, CJ) (A.V. SESHA SAI, J) October 15, 2019 MRR