(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in connection with the impugned order of transfer passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in R.C.No.A-40/NGB.III(1)/16/2026, dated 25.02.2026 and consequential transfer order passed by the second respondent vide his impugned proceedings in C.No.A2/11/12857623/2026, dated 12.03.2026 and the impugned relieving order issued by the third respondent vide his proceedings nil dated 12.03.2026 and quash the all in sofar as the petitioner is concerned as arbitrary and unlawful.)

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in connection with the impugned order of transfer passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in R.C.No.A-40/NGB.III(1)/16/2026, dated 25.02.2026 and consequential transfer order passed by the second respondent vide his impugned proceedings in C.No.A2/11/12857623/2026, dated 12.03.2026 and the impugned relieving order issued by the third respondent vide his proceedings Nil, dated 12.03.2026 and quash the all in sofar as the petitioner is concerned as arbitrary and unlawful.)

Common Order:

1. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the common order transferring the petitioners in these two writ petitions from Special Branch, Peraiyur and T.Kallupatti respectively to Tirunelveli City Police Commissionerate.

2. The impugned order and the issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions are one and the same and as such, they are taken up for consideration together and being disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioners herein, who are working as Head Constables in the Special Branch at Peraiyur and T.Kallupatti since 24.03.2022 and 01.11.2021 respectively, were transferred and posted to Tirunelveli City Police Commissionerate on administrative grounds through proceedings bearing Rc.No.A-40/NGB.III(1)/16/2026, dated 25.02.2026, issued by the first respondent. Pursuant to the said proceedings dated 25.02.2026, issued by the first respondent, the second respondent herein issued a consequential proceedings bearing C.No.A2/11/12857623/2026, dated 12.03.2026, reliving the petitioners herein from the present place of working.

4. In the said proceedings dated 25.02.2026, while transferring the petitioners herein to Tirunelveli City Police Commissionerate, the first respondent requested the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelvely City, to post them in any non-sensitive special unit in Tirunelveli City. In the light of the specific request made to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, by the first respondent herein through proceedings dated 25.02.2026, the petitioners herein have come forward by filing the present writ petitions contending that the impugned transfer and posting order is not an order issued on administrative grounds, but the same is punitive in nature.

5. This Court, having taken note of the same, by an order dated 17.03.2026 passed an interim order directing maintenance of status quo as on the date, while calling upon the respondents to file their counter-affidavits and also directed production of records.

6. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavits trying to justify the impugned transfer order and also produced the records.

7. Heard Mr.K.Gurunathan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.V.Om Prakash, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned transfer order is punitive in nature as there was a specific direction to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, to post the petitioners in any non-sensitive special unit, while they are working in the Special Branch. As the same is punitive in nature, in all fairness, the respondents ought to have informed the petitioners herein about the reasons for such punitive action and also contended that the impugned transfer order is not a simple case of transfer, but it is in the nature of punishment as the said transfer would operate prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners herein and also marks a stigma on them not only at the present place of working, but also at the new place of posting. He also further contended that the impugned transfer order has to sustain or fail only basing on the reasons assigned therein and the respondents cannot supply reasons to sustain the impugned transfer order by assigning reasons in the counter-affidavits. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court:

                   (i) Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India & others, reported in CDJ 2008 SC 2162;

                   (ii) K.M.Elumalai vs. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison-II & another, reported in CDJ 2009 MHC 4819;

                   (iii) P.Karunakaran vs. The Union of India & others, reported in CDJ 2013 MHC 4361;

                   (iv) Order dated 05.03.2020, passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No. 3959 of 2018 (T.V.Thulasingam vs. The District Collector, Kancheeputam District, Kancheepuram and others);

                   (v) Order dated 08.07.2021, passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No.661 of 2019; (C.Rajan Babu vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others)

                   (vi) Common Order dated 28.10.2021, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.10759 of 2021 and etc. batch (Narasingaraja vs. The Director General of Police / Inspector General of Prisons and others);

                   (vii) Common Judgment dated 02.02.2024, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2225 of 2021 and etc. batch (The Director General of Police / Inspector General of Prisons and others vs. Narasingaraja); and

                   (viii) Interim order dated 20.03.2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.M.P.(MD) No.5893 of 2025 in W.P.(MD) No.7769 of 2025 (M.Karuppasamy vs. The Inspector General of Police and others).

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the impugned transfer order was passed only basing upon administrative grounds and for better administration and utilization of the services of the petitioners. He also further contended that merely because there was an instruction issued by the first respondent to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, with regard to the posting of the petitioners, the same cannot be treated as a measure of punishment. According to him, even a non-sensitive special unit is required to be occupied by someone and therefore, by mere posting of the petitioners herein in any non-sensitive special unit cannot be treated as punitive in nature. He also further submitted that there is no change in the service conditions of the petitioners herein in any manner and no prejudice is caused to them by virtue of the impugned transfer order. He also further submitted that the petitioners have completed more than three years of service at the present place of working and the impugned transfer order is passed only on administrative reasons. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance on the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court:

                   (i) B.Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131;

                   (ii) Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659;

                   (iii) National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574;

                   (iv) Union of India vs. Janardhan Debanath, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245;

                   (v) Major General J.K. Bansal vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 227;

                   (vi) Samraj, P. vs. The Commissioner of Police, reported in 2007 (2) CTC 437;

                   (vii) High Court of Judicature of Madras vs. R.Perachi, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 137;

                   (viii) Amod Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 478;

                   (ix) Nagorao Shivaji Chavan vs. Sunil Purushottam Bhamre, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 788; and

                   (x) Judgment, dated 04.09.2020, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.466 of 2020 (The Director General of Police and others vs. S.S.Sivaperumal and another).

10. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 17.03.2026, the respondents have produced the original records before this Court in a sealed cover.

11. This Court perused the original records. However, this Court is not inclined to disclose the contents of the original records produced before this Court by the respondents in a sealed cover as the same are found to be not necessary for the disposal of the present writ petitions.

12. How to utilize the services of the government servants, at what place and how their services are to be better utilized etc., are all totally falling within the domain of the administration. It is also not necessary that in all cases of inefficiency, misconduct, negligence, irresponsibility etc., the employer is obligated to initiate disciplinary proceedings and then only effect transfer. In majority of the matters, change of place by itself would resolve several deficiencies / disorders in functioning of a government servant. It is for the employer to decide whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings in a particular fact situation or to simply effect transfer of such employee to have better administration. Various factors play role in the decision making process. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned transfer is in the nature of punitive transfer and without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to explain as to why they should not be transferred cannot be accepted.

13. Insofar as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, almost all the decisions are the cases where certain complaints were received against the government servants and as a result of the same, transfers were effected instead of conducting an enquiry by framing necessary charges. But, in the instant case, there is no reference to any such complaint in the impugned transfer order passed by the first respondent. In the absence of the same, it cannot be presumed that the impugned transfer came to be effected on any of the misconducts on the part of the petitioners. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Honouable Apex Court in Janardhan Debanath's case, wherein it was held as under:

                   “14. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.”

14. So also, in Shilpi Bose's case, the Honourable Apex Court has held as under:

                   “The courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. ”

15. So also, in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd.'s case, the Honourable Apex Court has held as under:

                   “...no government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned.”

16. In the light of the above, it is evident that transfer is a contingency of service and every employer has full discretion to transfer his employees depending upon the administrative exigencies. Court cannot exercise administrative control over the affairs of various Departments. In the case of transfer, nothing more is done than to move the concerned officer from a particular place. Transfer cannot be treated as a punishment by itself.

17. As already noted above, it is for the employer to decide whether to transfer a particular employee from one place to other or to initiate disciplinary proceedings by following the regular procedures. This is a decision to be taken by the employer concerned at his sole discretion. If such discretion is exercised by the competent authority and came to a conclusion to transfer an employee from one place to other as the same by itself resolve the issue and to improve the standard of administration, it can't be said that such transfer is punitive. Merely because there was a request made by the first respondent to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City to post the petitioners in any non-sensitive special unit, the same cannot be treated as punitive in nature as the same will in noway affect the service conditions or emoluments of the petitioners herein. Further, the said request is also not binding on the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, and it is open for him to take appropriate decision as to the posting of the petitioners. In the light of the above, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned transfer and relieving orders.

18. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.