WP/18359/2024 of DR.A.KHALEEL AHMED Vs THE DIRECTOR on 16 October 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned transfer order dated 21.06.2024 and the consequential relieving order dated 25.06.2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer on 15.10.2010 and was subsequently promoted as a Lecturer. It is his submission that the petitioner is the senior-most faculty member next to the present incumbent to the post of Head of the Department of General Medicine. It is also his submission that, with a mala fide intention to deprive the petitioner of his promotion, and at the instigation of the fourth respondent, a charge memorandum was issued against him, the operation of which was subsequently stayed by this Court in W.P.No.27495 of 2023. However, despite the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent authorities effected the transfer of the petitioner as a punitive measure. The learned counsel would further submit that, when the proceedings pursuant to the charge memorandum itself had been stayed, the transfer of the petitioner on the basis of the allegations levelled against him is nothing but punitive in nature. He would further contend that the impugned transfer was effected only at the instigation of the fourth respondent. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned transfer order is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

4. Per contra, the said contentions were stoutly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and would contend that the petitioner was originally her student and that he had disrespected and ill-treated her in the presence of the students. It is his submission that the fourth respondent is far senior to the petitioner, as she was recruited in the year 2000, whereas the petitioner was recruited only in the year 2010. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would further submit that, being a faculty member of the College, the fourth respondent has nothing to do with the issuance of the charge memorandum, which was issued by senior IAS officers, over whom the fourth respondent has no control or authority. Therefore, the contention that the charge memorandum was issued at the instigation of the fourth respondent is purely imaginary and devoid of any basis. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

5. In addition to the above submissions, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the fourth respondent entered service on 24.07.2000, whereas the petitioner entered service only on 15.10.2010. Accordingly, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that the fourth respondent is far senior to the petitioner. He would further submit that a charge memorandum was issued against the petitioner on 12.08.2023, alleging inappropriate behaviour towards female students, pursuant to which an Enquiry Officer was appointed and a departmental enquiry was conducted. However, only the passing of the final order pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings was stayed by this Court.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the transfer was effected to ensure a peaceful atmosphere for the students pursuing their education in the College. Whenever a complaint of this nature is received, it is expected of the authorities concerned to take appropriate administrative measures to ensure that the educational pursuits of the students are not hampered. In the case in hand, the contention of the petitioner that the transfer is punitive in nature is an exaggerated version of the facts. The petitioner was transferred to Ramanathapuram only in the interest of administrative convenience and to provide a conducive and positive atmosphere for the students. The fourth respondent has no role whatsoever in the transfer. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strongly contend that the impugned transfer order transferring the petitioner from Chennai to Ramanathapuram was issued only at the instigation of the fourth respondent. In the case in hand, though the petitioner would contend that he is senior to the fourth respondent, the admitted factual position is that the fourth respondent was recruited in the year 2000, whereas the petitioner was recruited only in the year 2010. The petitioner has also not disputed the fact that he was a student of the fourth respondent. The case projected by the petitioner is that, with a view to depriving him of his promotion, a false charge memorandum was issued against him at the instigation of the fourth respondent. However, the fact remains that a charge memorandum was issued against the petitioner alleging inappropriate behaviour towards female students.

9. The issuance of the charge memorandum is not in dispute. The contention of the petitioner is that the operation of the said charge memorandum was stayed by this Court. However, on a perusal of the order passed in W.M.P.No.26941 of 2023, filed seeking an interim order in the connected W.P.No.27495 of 2023, it is evident that this Court had not stayed the charge memorandum itself. On the contrary, the interim order was confined to the passing of the final order pursuant to the charge memorandum.

10. In the case in hand, though the petitioner has not furnished a copy of the charge memorandum, on a perusal of the counter affidavit, it is seen that the allegation against the petitioner relates to his alleged inappropriate behaviour towards a female student. Therefore, the respondent authorities are duty-bound to ensure a peaceful and conducive atmosphere for the students to pursue their education in a better environment. When complaints were made by the students alleging inappropriate behaviour on the part of the petitioner, which resulted in the issuance of the charge memorandum, and when there was no stay of the enquiry proceedings but only a restraint on the passing of the final order, this Court is of the firm view that the authorities, in the exercise of their administrative powers, are entitled to take appropriate measures in the interest of the institution and its students.

11. Administrative transfers are incidental to service and conditions of service. When transfer is an incidence of service, ordinarily no application or writ is entertainable before the Court of Law. An application or writ against the order of administrative transfer is entertainable, if the transfer order has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or allegation of mala fides are raised. Even in case of raising an allegation of mala fides, the authorities against whom such allegations are raised, must be impleaded as a party-respondent in their personal capacity.

12. Place or post can never be the choice of an employee. Organisational requirements and public interest are of paramount importance. Transfers are unavoidable in Government Departments for efficient public administration, which is a constitutional mandate. Courts cannot interfere with day-to-day administration of the Government Departments / Organisations. Such interference undoubtedly would cause prejudice to the interest of efficient administration. It is the prerogative of the Executive Authority to take decisions regarding transfer and posting of an employee in a particular fact situation. Interference in administrative transfer orders are beyond the realm of the power of judicial review.

13. In the case of Shilpi Bose and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in AIR 1991 SC 532, the Apex Court reiterated that the Courts should not interfere with the transfer order, which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons. Unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rules or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post have no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his service rights. If the Courts continue to interfere with the day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and the authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration, which would not be conducive to public interest.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tushar D. Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 11 SCC 678, head as follows: “16. The legal position has been crystallised in a number of judgments that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies.

17. In the instant case, in the entire tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant's transfer order cannot be termed as mala fide. The appellant was not justified in defying the transfer order and to level allegations against his superiors and remaining unauthorisedly absent from official duties from 11-10-1999 to 27-4-2000 i.e. more than six months. In the interest of discipline of any institution or organisation such an approach and attitude of the employees cannot be countenanced.

15. No doubt, a transfer may have certain repercussions and may affect the personal convenience of an individual. However, the personal convenience of an individual cannot outweigh the administrative requirements of the institution.

16. In the case in hand, the principal contention putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned transfer is punitive in nature. However, this Court is unable to accept the said submission, as the petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings on allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards a female student, though the passing of the final order pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings had been stayed by this Court. The mere passing of an interim order restraining the authorities from passing the final order would not, by itself, curtail the administrative powers of the authorities to take appropriate measures to ensure a peaceful and conducive atmosphere for the students.

17. Once a complaint of this nature is received, a duty is cast upon the authorities concerned to ensure a safe and conducive atmosphere for the students. Permitting a person against whom complaints of inappropriate behaviour towards female students have been made to continue in the same premises, may create an unfavourable atmosphere to the students and the same would adversely affect their educational pursuits. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the authorities are entitled to consider the overall welfare of the students and the smooth functioning of the institution while taking an administrative decision.

18. In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that the transfer of the petitioner subsequent to the issuance of the charge memorandum cannot, by itself, be termed punitive in nature. When serious allegations have been made against an individual, it is for the competent authority to take an appropriate administrative decision in the interest of the institution and the organisation. In the case in hand, having regard to the complaints against the petitioner and the administrative reasons put forth by the respondents, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned transfer order warranting interference in the exercise of its power of judicial review.

19. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

To

1. The Director (Formerly Known as Commissionerate) Indian Medical And Homeopathy, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106.

2. The Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.

3. The Principal i/c, Govt. Unani Medical College, Chennai-600 106.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV Pre-Delivery order in WP No. 18359 of 2024 16-10-2026