BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13/10/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.6779 of 2011 O.Manickam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in the petition of Selvarajan dated 23.05.2011 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.891/2011/A1, dated 25.05.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to take appropriate action against the persons who gave baseless complaints against this petitioner. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar ^For Respondents... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader. :ORDER
The petitioner is working as the Village Administrative Officer in the
Pannian group villages. He was also holding additional charge for the
Karumathur village. In the present writ petition, he has come forward to
challenge an order of transfer issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti namely, the second respondent herein, dated 25.05.2011. In the
order of transfer, it was stated that the District Collector namely, the first
respondent had received a complaint from the village people of Pannian group
villages that while granting flood relief to the village people, the petitioner
has committed irregularities. Therefore, the District Collector directed the
second respondent to take appropriate action on the basis of the complaint.
2.In the light of the above, the second respondent passed the impugned
order on public interest and administrative reasons transferring the petitioner
from the existing village Pannian group villages and Karumathur village
additional charge to Vagurani group village with additional charge of
Veppanoothu village in the place of one Radhakrishnan and the said Radhakrishnan
was directed to be posted in the place of the petitioner. Challenging the said
order of transfer, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3.The contention raised by the petitioner was that one Selvarajan who
instigated the village people and signed the complaint was motivated and he was
an expelled village menial of Pannian village and was acting as an agent in the
village offices and taluk offices for getting patta and paying taxes to receive
some certificates from the revenue authorities and has been conducting agency
business. He has developed hostile on the petitioner and has made a baseless
allegation. It is stated that the second respondent ought not to have relied
upon the said complaint and effected transfer which in turn a punishment without
being heard on the basis of the said allegation.
4.In the writ petition, notice of admission was ordered on 28.06.2011. On
notice from this Court, the Revenue Divisional Officer has filed a counter
affidavit, dated 04.8.2011. In the counter affidavit, at page-3, it was stated
as follows:
“It is submitted that as per the Collector’s reference dated 23.05.2011
and a message over phone received on 23.05.2011 from the Collector, Madurai in
regard to the allegation of the Villagers of Pannian Village to the 2nd
respondent. He has issued proceedings transferring the petitioner to Vagurani
group village with additional charge of Veppanoothu village in this office
Na.Ka.No.891/2011/B2, dated 25.05.2011. Consequent on the joining of Thiru.Radha
Krishnan as Village Administrative Officer, Pannian with additional charge of
Karumathur, the petitioner is presumed to have been relieved from his duty
villages Pannian and Additional charge as Marumathur. While conducting the mass
contact day at Ariyapatti village by the District Collector, Madurai, the
petitioner Thiru.O.Manickam who asked to call on by the District Collector on
the day has stayed away from duty from 24.05.2011 for which show cause notice
was issued to him calling for his explanation for his unauthorized absence. The
transfer orders issued in Na.Ka.No.891/2011/A1, dated 25.05.2011 is just and
reasonable and also sustainable as per law admissible”.
5.Therefore, it cannot said that the there was no absolute material
against the petitioner is being disturbed from the existing village and the
averments made in the counter affidavit by the Revenue Divisional Officer
reproduced above also shows that the District Collector wanted to enquire him,
he himself scarce and absented himself. When the authorities at the head of the
District receives complaint, it is not as if they are powerless in taking action
against their subordinates, the action can range from suspension, charge sheet
followed by an enquiry are so as to assert the feelings of the village people
shifted the person from one place to another place. In that process, the
petitioner is not a loser, his status and emoluments are always guaranteed and
though the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that his client to stand
for a trial to prove the complaint was baseless and if he desires, he can always
make a request to the District Collector and thereafter, it is for the District
Collector to decide and it should be the mode for enquiring into the complaint.
It is suffice, if there is any prima facie truth in the complaint, it is open to
the District Collector to order his subordinates to take appropriate action
against the persons including the village level officials. Merely because the
transfer was effected on the basis of a representation sent by the villagers
which will not make the transfer as a punishment or invalidating its use as
surreptitious for imposing such penalty.
6.Under these circumstances, this Court is not convinced. There is no case
made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
sms
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District.