By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2.The petitioner has questioned the correctness of the impugned order of transfer dated 21.08.2017, in any by which, the petitioner who is a Driver, working in Papanasam Branch has been transferred to Thamiraparani Branch of the respondent Corporation, on the ground that the petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings before the respondent Corporation. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner was also placed under suspension by the second respondent on 19.06.2017.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 24.06.2017, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo. On receipt of the same, the petitioner has also given his detailed explanation on 18.07.2017, refuting the charges levelled against him. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the second respondent has passed the impugned order of transfer dated 21.08.2017, transferring the petitioner from Papanasam Branch to Thamiraparani Branch and the same was also served on the petitioner on 04.09.2017. The third respondent Transport Corporation is running 66 routes and as against the 66 routes available, two routes namely No.1B (Papanasam to Kallidaikurichi) and No.22 SLF (Papanasam to Ambasamudram), have been kept in abeyance. The said routes have only been allotted to certain individuals. In this regard, a representation was also made to the third respondent on 15.08.2017.
4.Subsequently, this Court has also passed an order in W.P.No.9647 of 2011 on 20.06.2011, giving a direction to the second respondent therein, not to allot any specific route to any of the office-bearers or any of the Trade Unions as stated by them in the communication dated 30.04.2010 and comply with the settlement entered into with the respective trade unions on 06.02.2008. In spite of the above direction, the impugned order of transfer has been passed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
5.The petitioner was suspended for three days by the second respondent on 19.06.2017. After revoking the suspension order dated 19.06.2017, when the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 24.06.2017, he has been transferred from Papanasam Branch to Thamiraparani Branch. The law is well settled that any incumbent can be transferred in lieu of suspension. In the present case also as rightly admitted, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 19.06.2017 and he was issued with a charge memo. Subsequently, the petitioner has been transferred to Papanasam Branch.
6.The exception granted in G.O.(Ms).No.10, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-S) Department dated 07.01.1994, clearly shows that Government servant / incumbent can be transferred in order to avoid suspension. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was suspended for three days and to avoid prolonged suspension, it appears that the respondents have transferred the petitioner. Therefore, this court finds no infirmity in the impugned order of transfer. Transfer is not only condition of service but it is also incident of service. Moreover, the petitioner has been transferred only to a distance of about 50 kilometers.
7.This writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli.
2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Tirunelveli Division, Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli.
3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Tirunelveli Division, Papanasam Branch.
Papanasam, Tirunelveli District.
.