Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These two writ appeals are directed against the orders in W.P. Nos. 10089 and 10090 of 1983. The respondent in W.A. No. 244 of 1984 is K. Raman, Assistant Divisional Engineer in M.R.T. The respondent in W.A. No. 245 of 1984 is A. P. Ramasamy, Divisional Engineer in M.R.T. "M.R.T." is the abbreviation of Meter Relay Testing.

2. The short facts leading to the writ appeals are as follows :- A case of theft of electrical energy to the tune of Rs. 2,41,406/- at Messrs. Crystal Ice Factory, Guindy, Madras was noticed on 26th May, 1983. A complaint was lodged by the Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras with the police concerning this theft. The police initiated investigation. In the course of such investigation, meters with seals similar to those tested on 13th November, 1975, 11th November, 1975 and 12th March, 1976 were required by the police. That was with a view to cross-check with the seals concerned in the case of theft of energy. On 9th June, 1983, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board addressed a letter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Guindy, Madras with copies marked to Raman, the respondent in W.A. No. 244 of 1984. Inter alia, it was stated therein as to the modus operandi that could be adopted to trace the specimen seals. There was also a note to the said respondent as the sub-Inspector of Police, Guindy, in the manner set out therein. On 26th July, 1983 Raman wrote to the Vigilance Cell of the Board with a copy to Ramasamy, the respondent in W.A. No. 245 of 1984. In that letter it was stated that the concerned meters were not easily traceable. Difficulties even with regard to the tracing of test records were also pointed out in that letter. On 9th August, 1983, the Inspector General of Police and Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board wrote to the Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Madras Electricity System (South), Madras-2, complaining that the investigation was unnecessarily pending for want of co-operation from Raman. He further wanted instructions to be issued to Raman to trace the test records. This letter may now be extracted :

2. Thiru A. P. Ramasamy and Thiru V. V. Sampath should take charge of their new posts immediately."

3. It was under those circumstances the two writ petitions came to the field - W.P. No. 10089 of 1983 by Raman and W.P. No. 10090 of 1983 by A. P. Ramasamy - to quash the respective orders of transfer.

4. The specific ground that was taken in the affidavit by Raman may now be stated. It was contended that Raman was the Treasurer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Association, Madras. By reason of Memo No. 108988/Admn. Rr/R-2(1)/82-1 dated 6th May, 1983, a clear exemption is contemplated as far as the officer-bearers of the Association are concerned with regard to transfer and such an exemption ought to have been granted to K. Raman, the respondent in W.A. No. 244 of 1984. However, an additional affidavit filed by Raman to the effect that he had been elected as Vice-Chairman of Madras South Branch of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Association on 11th August, 1983 and that his jurisdiction extends only to Madras Electricity System, South and by the impugned order of his transfer from Madras to Kundah, Nilgiries District, he is disabled to function as such Vice-Chairman. This factum of election of K. Raman as Vice-Chairman is disputed in the counter-affidavit of the Board. The Electricity Board, after referring to the detection of the noticing of theft of energy on 26th May, 1983, stated that K. Raman was prima facie found to have committed misconduct and that disciplinary action was being initiated against him. It was further stated that in the meanwhile since Meter Relay Test is a sensitive branch in charge of metering in High Tension Services and Low Tension Services and as investigation has been in progress against the petitioner, it was not considered safe to allow him to continue in the same post, of Assistant Divisional Engineer/Meter Relay Test and he was transferred and posted as Assistant Divisional Engineer, Kundah power House - V, in the interest of administration, where there was a vacancy.

"The petitioner (Ramasamy) is prima facie found to have committed a misconduct and disciplinary action has been initiated against him. But, in the meanwhile, since Meter Relay Test Division is a sensitive Branch in charge of metering in High Tension Services and Low Tension Services and as an investigation is in progress against the petitioner it was not considered safe to allow him to continue in the same post of Divisional Engineer/Meter Relay Test; he was posted as Divisional Engineer in another office in the same campus in the interests of administration."

9. One thing must be stated at the outset. This Court exercising powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution is not exercising administrative supervision of the affairs of the Electricity Board and the Board known how to administer its affairs. It cannot be gainsaid that transfer is an incidence of service. As the learned Judge himself has rightly put it, if it is a part of the conditions of service, it is not normally open to judicial review. It is equally true that if an order of transfer is maintained with mala fides or violative of certain well accepted norms or penal in nature, the Court can always find out whether such an order or transfer is mala fide, passed with ulterior motive or intended to achieve an object circumventing disciplinary proceedings. In this case we have set out the facts in detail. One thing that is very clear is the theft of electrical energy came to be noticed as early as 26th May, 1983. The letter of the Inspector-General of Police dated 9th August, 1983 which we have extracted in full complaints about lack of co-operation on the part of the officials concerned. Where, therefore, as stated by the Electricity Board, it was felt that the respondents were prima facie found to have committed misconduct and disciplinary action was initiated against them, it cannot be said that the basis of the orders of transfer was the misconduct, as such. We state so because, the assertion of the Board is that the Meter Relay Test is a sensitive branch which is in charge of metering in High Tension Services and Low Tension Services, that investigation is in progress against the respondents and that therefore it was not considered safe to allow them to continue in the same posts. Therefore we do not understand the stand of the Electricity Board as saying that it is the misconduct which is the foundation of the orders of transfer. We are afraid the learned Judge was very much influenced by the words as though the respondents herein were guilty of misconduct. After having extracted the relevant portion of the counter-affidavit, the learned Judge went on to hold that when the stand is expressed in the present case that the orders of transfer have come to be passed, taking note of certain alleged misconduct, then certain principles intervene and compel this Court to examine the matter to find out as to whether the alleged misconduct was the very foundation of the order of transfer so as make the order of transfer nothing but a guise for an order of punishment in fact, skipping over the process of disciplinary proceedings, as laid down by law. For our part, we are unable to appreciate this finding. What is the punishment which the Electricity Board might have imposed by resorting to disciplinary proceedings, which proceedings are circumvented by passing the order of transfer ? As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate-General transfer is not one of the punishments contemplated under the rules by resorting to disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, in every administration, day in and day out orders of transfer are passed on account of exigencies of administration. As to what such exigency is, we do not think that the authority passing the order must be called upon to explain to this Court. However, that is not to be confused with the situation where the order of transfer is actuated by mala fides. As to what would constitute mala fides we will deal with in the latter part of our Judgment. For aught one knows, allegations or complaints however baseless they may be, may constitute a cause for transfer, sometimes even the foundation for such transfer. After all, what is done by a transfer, which as stated above, is part of a contingency of service ? If the administration finds that having regard to the complaints or allegations it is better a particular officer is removed from the particular workspot, transfer is ordered. Beyond that it does not visit the officer concerned with any penalty whatever, penalty not in the sense of disciplinary proceedings but from the point of view of emoluments, rank or status. If that be the position in law, where then is the necessity for the full exposure of the justifying factors for transfer before the Court ? For our part, we are unable to see any necessity.