G. VIJAYAMANI Vs. THE GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, filed the Original Application, questioning the transfer order dated 13.02.2012 before the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, inter -alia, on the ground that the order is not reasoned or speaking order. The order is based on certain allegations / complaints and also the place where the petitioner has been transferred is not having the mechanical department, wherein the petitioner can be transferred.

(2.) THE Tribunal, considering all the facts of the matter, held that the transfer order was passed in administrative exigency by the competent authority and also the transfer guidelines have been followed. It was also held that the petitioner failed to establish the malafide either on facts or on law. The Tribunal dismissed the original application, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Janardhan Debanath and another [ : 2004 SCC (L&S) 631], wherein it was held as under :

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend before us that the transfer order was passed in exercise of malice in law, as the Tribunal after holding that the petitioner was transferred on administrative exigency to enforce the decorum and ensure probity, has failed to lift the veil in respect of malafide. The transfer order has been passed on account of the complaint against the petitioner, which ought to have been proved before accepting the allegations and passing the transfer order to the prejudice of the petitioner. It was next contended that the petitioner was not transferred to mechanical department, but only to the traffic station. Admittedly, the petitioner is working in the mechanical department. On that account also, the transfer order is vitiated. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari Vs Union of India [ : (2009) 2 SCC 592].