U.C.Banerjee, J - (1.) It is now well settled that the Writ Court would not normally interfere with the orders of transfer, since the High Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot assume the role of an administrative supervisor in, regard to the affairs of a concerned organisation. But this cannot have an universal application and it depends upon, the facts and circumstances of each case. The managerial function to transfer cannot and ought not to be regarded as a prerogative, without any just cause. If the transfer order is tainted with malice or is violative of well-accepted norms or it is penal in nature, the writ Court shall be within its jurisdiction to enquire into the charge of malice and if found substantiated can set right the wrong and to set right of wrong is a plain exercise of judicial powers and there ought not to be any hesitation in. that regard.
(2.) The Madras High Court in the case of C. Ramanathan vs. Acting Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, Madras 8 Ors. reported in 1980 1 L.L.J. page 1 observed "Courts are chary to interfere with an order of transfer made for administrative reasons, An innocuous order of transfer which not only on the face of it appears to be one made in order to further the administrative interests of an organisation but which even on a deeper scrutiny does not pose any irregular or mala fide exercise of powers by the concerned authority, is generally upheld by civil Courts, as Courts cannot substitute their own opinion and interfere with ordinary orders of transfer of employees of established organisation. But if in a given case, as order of transfer appears to be deliberate attempt to by pass all disciplinary machinery and offend the well known principle of audi alteram pastern if ex facie it is clear that the order of transfer was not made for administrative reasons but was made to achieve collateral purpose, then it is open to the Court to crack the shell of innocuousness 'which wraps the order of transfer and by piercing such a veil, find out the rival purpose behind the order of transfer. No doubt, a normal order of transfer can, be misunderstood as a punitive measure. But, if the circumstances surrounding such an order leads to a reasonable inference by a well instructed mind, that such an order was made in the colourable exercise of power and intended to achieve a sinister purpose and based on 'irrelevant considerations, then the arm, of the Court can be extended so as to decipher the intendment of the order and set it aside on the ground that it is one made with a design and motive or circumventing disciplinary action and particularly when civil servant is involved, to avoid the stringent but mandatory procedure prescribed in Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India."
(3.) The High Court, therefore, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to investigate as to whether the order of transfer is tainted with malice or, motive or can be termed to be an order for administrative exigencies. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether the order of transfer cap, be termed to be an act contrary to law in the facts of the ease under consideration.;