IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY THIS THE NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.24148 of 2014 Between:
P.Bhimaraju . PETITIONER And The Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director, Visakhapatnam and 2 others . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.24148 of 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner is a Lineman in APEPDCL, Amalapuram Division, East Godavari District. In the present writ petition, the petitioner questioned the impugned Memo dated 16.08.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent, whereunder the petitioner was transferred from Cherreru to Vanapalli. According to the petitioner, his transfer is contrary to the Transfer Policy Guidelines issued in Memos dated 19.07.2014 and 22.07.2014 respectively.
The petitioner has been working as Treasurer of the A.P. Electricity Employees Union for the Amalapuram Division since 2012. As per the Transfer Policy Guidelines issued in Memos dated 19.07.2014 and 22.07.2014 he submits that no general transfer should be effected for the year 2014-15 and his transfer was made basing on the guidelines issued for mutual transfer, even though there was no request from him for any such transfer. He contends that his transfer is contrary to the transfer policy and guidelines issued by the 3rd respondent. He further contends that he is not supposed to be transferred from Amalapuram Division since he is the Office Bearer of the A.P.Electricity Employees Union of Amalapuram Division. The version of the petitioner is that as there was no possibility to transfer him as per the general transfer policy, he was transferred under the guise of administrative grounds and therefore, he seeks to set aside the transfer proceedings.
The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit contending inter alia that the guidelines relied upon by the petitioner relate to mutual transfer and they do not govern the transfer made on administrative grounds or general transfers. According to the respondents, Regulation 17 of APSEB Service Regulation Part-III which was adopted by APEPDCL, a member of class of service may be required to serve in any post borne on the cadre of such class of service and in any place of duty depending on administrative exigencies. Further, according to the respondents, there is no protection to the Office Bearers of the Divisional Unit as per the guidelines issued by A.P.Transco which were adopted by APEPDCL and there is no exemption for transfer of the petitioner since he is only the Treasurer of Amalapuram Divisional Unit. It is submitted by the respondents that there were several complaints against the petitioner and the transfer of the petitioner was made on administrative grounds basing on the enquiry report of the Superintending Engineer/DPE/APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam.
Since the petitioner is a Treasurer of the Union at Divisional level, he cannot claim any protection from transfer. Further, even an office bearer can also be transferred on administrative grounds and the employer is vested with such power. In support of his contention that the petitioner cannot assail the transfer proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the judgment in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P[1] wherein the Supreme Court held that as to at what place the employee is posted is an exclusive prerogative of the State Government keeping in view the administrative exigencies and the High Court has only limited scope of judicial review and can examine the question whether the transfer of the employee was actuated with mala fides or otherwise in violation of statutory rules.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also relied on a judgment in D.Vasantha Kumar v. State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam[2] wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that the guidelines formulated regulating exercise of power to transfer employees are only an administrative mechanism to put in place uniform standards and procedures for securing fair play and transparency, and order of transfer in breach of any of those guidelines cannot be interfered with by the Court in the absence of proven malice.
In the instant case, the contention of the respondents is that there were several complaints against the petitioner, enquiry was conducted into the said complaints, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner and basing on the report the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds. As such, the petitioner cannot assail the transfer on the ground that it is contrary to the general policy prescribed for the transfer of employees or on the ground that he is an office bearer of union. I see absolutely no merit in the writ petition and hence dismiss the same. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 09.10.2014 Dsr
[1] (2009) 15 SCC 178
[2] 2012 (3) ALD 173 (DB)