K. Kannan, J. - (1.) CM No. 9758 of 2012 in CM Nos. 5614 -15 of 2012 Exemption granted, as prayed for. Documents Annexures R5/28 to R5/35 are taken on record. Application stands disposed of. CM No. 9759 of 2012 in CM Nos. 5614 -15 of 2012 Reply of respondent No. 5 to the applications CM Nos. 5614 -15 of 2012 filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Application stands disposed of. CM No. 5614 of 2012 in CWP No. 2996 of 2012 Exemption granted from filing the certified copies of Annexures A1 and A2. Application stands disposed of. CM No. 5615 of 2012 in CWP No. 2996 of 2012
(2.) THE application has been filed by the writ petitioner after the disposal of the case allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 02.07.2012. Through the judgment referred to above, this Court had accepted the contention of the petitioner that the order of transfer made from the place of posting was not sustainable, but however for purity for the administration, it was better to allow the transfer order to stand without in any way being treated as constituting a stigma against the petitioner. On such an observation, the impugned order of transfer was not interfered with. A prayer in the writ petition seeking for investigation against the 5th respondent was also found as unnecessary. Even before the disposal of the writ petition, the present application under consideration had been filed. However, in my order at para 17, I had observed that the application cannot be disposed of without affording to the 5th respondent an opportunity to reply to the averments raised and had posted the application for hearing separately on 26.07.2012. Reply has been filed and the application is being disposed of now under a separate order. The averment made in the application for protection to prosecute the 5th respondent is founded on an assertion that the 5th respondent had deliberately stated untruth by a false affidavit in response to the petitioner's own contention in the writ petition that the 5th respondent had asked the petitioner to go on leave on 04.02.2012. The petitioner would contend that in response to this contention, the 5th respondent had taken a plea that it was wrong to state that he had asked the petitioner to do any job outside the official domain and that the petitioner had proceeded on leave on his own and was not forced to do so. However, the 5th respondent himself had in yet another writ petition filed by the contractor M/s. D.S. Development Services in CWP No. 23925 of 2011 that he had asked the officer to proceed on leave due to his working against the public interest and was subsequently ordered to be transferred on 14.02.2012. This seeming contradiction was sought to be explained by the respondent that there were adverse press statements against the manner of issue of certain tender notices by the administration in which it was perceived that the petitioner had an important role to play. The respondent would contend that the petitioner was advised that his own statements in CWP No. 23925 of 2011 filed by the contractor would land everyone in trouble and that the petitioner should work on proper ethics or proceed on leave. He was trying to explain that at no stage, the petitioner was forced to go on leave and that the petitioner would either work ethically or proceed on leave. The explanation therefore was that no force or coercion was exercised on the petitioner to proceed on leave, but he was advised of the painful alternative that existed at a time when the department was put to serious adverse comments.
(3.) WHILE delivering judgment, I had an occasion to consider the effect of the suggestion made to the petitioner to proceed on leave in para 11 of the judgment as follows: - 11. Though the 5th respondent is not prepared to admit in the written statement filed before this Court that he had asked the petitioner to go on leave, there is a veiled statement that he suggested that such a course of taking leave would be appropriate in a situation where several of his decisions relating to finalization of tenders seemed suspect. There had been a 'speaking order' for sealing the petitioner's office premises issued by the 5th respondent and an order of transfer had been issued the next day. It is impossible to miss the link that the petitioner was fended off from attending his office initially by asking him to go on leave, made it impossible to rejoin duty on 13.02.2012 by sealing the premise and on the next day, an order of transfer had been issued. On a limited issue of whether there was any improper motivation for ordering transfer, I had specifically held as follows: -;