This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai.5, first respondent herein in No.AUPA1/168269/2005, dated 1.12.2005 and subsequent proceedings of the Chief Engineer, Agriculture Engineering (Incharge), Nandanam, Nandanam, Chennai.35 in SE.MU.No.Thu.Pa.1/71430/2005 dated 6.12.2005 passed by the respondent herein quash the same.
2. The petitioner, Jeep Driver challenges the order of the first respondent surrendering him to the parent department/second respondent and the consequential order of transfer passed by the second respondent transferring the petitioner from Chennai to Vellore stating that the order of transfer is malafide and contrary to Rules.
3. The petitioner joined the services of the second respondent/ Department in the year 1982 as a Jeep driver. He falls under Group-D services. He was suspended on 14.10.2005 pending enquiry into the grave charges in terms of Rule 17(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It is stated that the order of suspension was stayed by an interim order of this Court dated 20.3.2006 in WP No.35198 of 2005. Thereafter, the suspension was revoked on 28.11.2005.
4. The first respondent thereafter surrendered the services of the petitioner to the parent department viz., the second respondent in proceedings No.AUPA1/168269/2005, dated 1.12.2005, which according to the petitioner, has not been served on the petitioner and consequent to this, the second respondent passed the proceedings in SE.Mu.No.Thu Pa.1/71430/3005, dated 6.12.2005 placing the petitioner at the services of the third respondent/ Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering, Vellore, so as to post him in any suitable place on transfer. The said proceedings, is under challenge stating that the surrender by the first respondent and subsequent transfer is violative of the various Government Orders and Rules. He states that the impugned proceedings passed in the middle of the academic year is violative of Government letter No.43545/Per.s/86-2, (P&AR) (Per.S), dated 24.2.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.288/90 (P&AR) Department, dated 15.6.1990.
5. A counter has been filed stating that there is no restraint in law to surrender the petitioner to the second respondent/ parent department. On such surrender, the petitioner can be shifted within the parent department in any suitable post. On surrender, the petitioner has to be suitably placed in any appropriate vacancy. Since the vacancy was available at Vellore, petitioner was placed in the third respondent office at Vellore. Therefore, there is no basis for the allegation of malafides or arbitrariness in the proceedings under challenge.
6. The Additional Government Pleader refers to the Rules and states that the petitioner falls under the exception to general guidelines for transfer of Government Servants. It is specifically stated that the guidelines relating to transfer does not apply to certain categories viz., Group'D' employees. It is stated that there is no basis for the allegation of malafides and in any event, no respondent has been named in person to allege and establish the allegations of malafide and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Further, no Rule has been cited by the petitioner to show that the surrender made by the requisitioning department is illegal or bad.
7. Insofar as the transfer is concerned as has been stated above, the exception to the General Guideline clearly provides that in respect of transfer of Group-D Government Servants, the guidelines would not apply. In any event, from the factual aspects of the present case, it is clear that the petitioner on being sent back to the parent department has been posted in a suitable place, based on the vacancy position. The petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that he should be allowed to work in a particular place. The allegation of malafide does not stand a minute's scrutiny as no named officer is shown to have acted malafide and ordered the transfer. Therefore, the order of transfer and posting impugned in the present writ petition is justified. No good ground has been made out to interfere with the same.
8. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that in the event of the petitioner being sent to Vellore District, disciplinary action will be taken on the ground that he challenged the order of transfer and posting before this Court. The petitioner is entitled to approach this forum if any wrong has been done and if it is a bonafide exercise, then no authority can find fault with it.
10. Every citizen has a right to approach the Court for redressal of his grievance if any wrong has been done to him. In this case, the writ petition was admitted and an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner and he has enjoyed the benefit till date. However, the petitioner is now willing to abide by the order of transfer and to serve at Vellore or anyother nearby place subject to the vacancy that may be available. The respondents/authorities need not harbour any prejudice against the petitioner for ventilating his grievance before this Court as the authorities, who are the officers of the State have a duty to respect the orders of the Court and abhor any action vindictively. The petitioner also has a duty to abide by the Rules and ensure that the wheel of administration runs smoothly.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks sufficient time to enable the petitioner to join duty after receiving the posting order. The authorities shall give reasonable time in this regard.