(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Transfer Order No.2301/ E3A / Pa.Thu.1/ TNSTC (Ko) / 2020 dated 27.02.2020 issued by the 2nd Respondent and the relieving order No.35232 dated 11.10.2020 transferring the petitioner from Mettulapalayam Branch II to Coonoor Branch in Nilgris District, quash the same and Consequently direct the Respondents to retain the Petitioner in Mettupalayam Depot -II, award costs.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perused the records.

2. The petitioner by the present Writ Petition has assailed the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing transfer order dated 27.02.2020, transferring him from Mettupalayam Depot-II to Coonoor Depot in Nilgiris District and the relieving order dated 11.10.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent, as being illegal and malafide and vindictive action.

3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that he had joined the service of the 1st respondent Corporation as Driver on 06.02.2010 and was made permanent and brought under time scale of pay; that on his appointment, he was posted initially at Head office Depot and thereafter subjected to frequent transfers to Mettupalayam Depot-II, Sungam Depot-II, Mettupalayam Depot-I and again Mettupalayam Depot -II and Ooty Depot-II.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that while he was working in Ooty Depot II, he was transferred to Mettupalayam Depot vide proceedings dated 30.12.2016 and in all he has been subjected to 8 transfers in a period of 10 years; and that all his frequent transfers are only on account of his association with Trade Union and Trade Union Activities.

5. The petitioner further contends that after joining Ooty Depot II, the respondents have sent him to Mettupalayam Depot II on deputation on the ground of shortage of drivers at Mettupalayam Depot and while working in Mettupalayam on deputation, the respondents Management came forward for a compromise and cancelled the order of transfer and transferred him again back to Mettupayalam Depot – II from Ooty Depot-II by an order dated 30.12.2016.

6. The petitioner further contends that while he was discharging duties in Mettupalayam Depot on 19.01.2020, he was assigned duty to ply the bus between Mettupalayam and Theni; that during such discharge of duties an accident had occurred involving the bus being driven by him, a two wheeler and a pedestrian; that the aforesaid accident had taken place due to the negligence of the pedestrian and he was no way responsible for the same.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that on occurrence of the said accident, the Regional Transport Office (RTO), Tiruppur seized his original driving licence based on a false FIR registered by the Police to help the victim; and that he had approached the Madurai Bench of this Court seeking release of his original driving licence seized by the RTO Authorities; that pursuant to the orders of the Madurai Bench of this Court dated 19.03.2020, his licence was released by the RTO Authorities; that in the meantime on account of Covid 19 pandemic and total lockdown imposed by the Government from 24.03.2020, due to which no buses were operated nor individuals were permitted to come out; that on lifting of lockdown, relaxation given to operate buses, he reported to work on 18.06.2020 and requested the respondents to allow him to work; and that as the respondents did not allow him to work, he has submitted a representation on 24.06.2020.

8. The petitioner further contends that he could not report to work on 23.01.2020 after being involved in an accident on 19.01.2020 as his original driving licence was seized by the RTO Authorities; and that the 2nd respondent issued a Charge Memo alleging that he had unauthorizedly abstained since, 23.01.2020; that only after this Court passed order on 19.03.2020, his original driving licence having been returned by the RTO Authorities, and thereafter lockdown on account of Covid 19 Pandemic having been imposed; that immediately after the lockdown is relaxed, though he had reported to duty on 18.06.2020, the respondents did not allow him to join duty; and that the respondents only after being served with representation, dated 24.03.2020, permitted him to join duty vide proceedings dated 24.07.2020 and accordingly, he had joined duty on 25.07.2020.

9. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents thereafter in relation to the accident that occurred on 19.01.2020 placed him under suspension for a period of one month from 01.08.2020 to 30.08.2020 and after expiry of the suspension period, he was allowed and permitted to join duty form 31.08.2020.

10. The petitioner further contended that on 12.10.2020 after being relieved from duty, he had suffered severe pain in shoulder and neck, for which he had taken treatment in Mettupalayam Government Hospital and thereafter left to his native place to take further treatment by applying medical leave from 13.10.2020 along with Medical Certificate dated 12.10.2020; that in the meantime, the 3rd respondent had sent the relieving order dated 11.10.2020 by Registered post on 12.10.2020, received by him on 15.10.2020, whereunder the 3rd respondent by referring to transfer order dated 27.02.2020, directed him to report to his place of transfer in Coonoor Depot; that only on receiving the aforesaid communication, he had learned the transfer order dated 27.02.2020, whereby the respondents claimed of he having been transferred from Mettupalayam Depot-II to Coonoor Depot in Nilgiris District; that copy of the Transfer order was not served on him at any point of time; and that by letter dated 15.10.2020, he had sought for being furnished with a copy of the transfer order dated 27.02.2020; and that only on being furnished the copy thereof, he had learned that the respondents once again have transferred him to Coonoor Depot after withdrawing earlier transfer to Ooty Depot II and posting him back to Mettupalayam Depot.

11. The petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in not serving transfer order which is alleged to have been issued on 27.02.2020 till he is being served with the relieving order dated 11.10.2020, clearly shows malafide action and intention of the respondents.

12. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further contended that on he being furnished with a copy of the alleged transfer order dated 27.02.2020, he had noticed that the aforesaid order was issued under the signature of the General Manager while the competent Authority is the Managing Director i.e., the 1st respondent.

13. The petitioner further contends that Coonoor Depot comes under a different region and as such the 2nd respondent is not the competent Authority to effect inter region transfer and it is only the 1st respondent who is the competent authority and for the said reason also the impugned order dated 27.02.2020 is illegal and void ab initio.

14. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since, the impugned order by which he was transferred to Coonoor Depot by the 2nd respondent, is without jurisdiction, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. Contending as above, the petitioner sought for setting aside the impugned orders and consequently direct the Respondents to retain the Petitioner in Mettupalayam Depot -II.

15. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents.

16. However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that at the relevant point of time, the jurisdiction of Coimbatore Region of the Respondents Corporation included the District of Coimbatore, Nilgirils, Tiruppur, Erode and part of Dindigul Revenue District consisting of Palani Depot; that the 1st respondent Managing Director is the overall head for the region; that the General Manager i.e., the 2nd respondent is the concerned authority for each of the Revenue Districts; that the order of appointment under which the petitioner was appointed clearly states that the services of the petitioner are transferable within the region and as such the petitioner had been transferred earlier to work at various depots as per his own admissions which the petitioner does not find fault with.

17. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that on 19.01.2020 the bus being driven by the petitioner was involved in a major accident resulting to death of a pedestrian; and that the respondents have initiated disciplinary action and thereafter the petitioner was permitted to join duty.

18. It is further contended by the respondents that the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly from 23.01.2020, for which he was issued with show cause notice dated 28.02.2020 and even after receiving the said show cause notice, the petitioner did not report to duty, and thus, the respondents have placed him under suspension after reporting to duty on 25.07.2020.

19. On behalf of the respondents, it is further contended that as the transfer of the petitioner is from Mettupalayam Depot II to Coonoor Depot which also come under Coimbatore Region of the respondent Corporation, the impugned order has been issued under the signature of the 2nd respondent and as such the same cannot be called as without jurisdiction and requiring to be issued only under the signature of the 1st respondent.

20. On behalf of the respondents, it is further contended that though the transfer order mentions the date as 27.02.2020, the same is due to a typographical error, instead of 27.07.2020 and thus, the petitioner cannot claim the same having been withheld from being served on him since, February, 2020.

21. I have taken note of the respective contentions.

22. At the outset, it is to be noted that on the petitioner approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition, assailing the action of the respondents in issuing the transfer order as well as the relieving order, this Court had granted interim stay on 27.11.2020. As a result of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is continuing to work in the same place where he was working prior to passing of the impugned order i.e., Mettupalayam Depot II. Thus, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has achieved the object which he intended i.e., not requiring to report to duty at Coonoor Depot after being served with Relieving order dated 11.10.2020. Thereafter, further 5 years have passed by. Thus, this Court is of the view that at this stage no useful purpose would be served in going into the merits of the case as to whether the impugned order is with jurisdiction or without jurisdiction and also as to whether the transfer of the petitioner is malafide and vindictive action.

23. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that his services are not transferable, as the petitioner himself in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, had claimed of he having been transferred 8 times in a period of 10 years of service. Thus, the above being the factual position since, the petitioner is continuing to work during last 5 years at Mettupalayam Depot II, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the respondents to give effect to the aforesaid transfer order now.

24. However, taking note of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402), wherein it was held that the Court should not interfere with the transfer orders, since, the petitioner had completed further five years at the same place, this Court is of the view that respondents are to be granted liberty to under take transfer based on exigencies.

25. During the course of hearing of the present writ petition, on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that in the interregnum, the petitioner was relieved from driving duties and was assigned light work as a Security Guard on account of his disability viz., Colour blindness. This is also another mitigating circumstance for this Court to take note while considering the challenge to the impugned transfer order.

26. However, as noted above the fact of this Court examining the transfer order impugned cannot result / prevent the respondents from effecting transfer of the petitioner if a need be in any other depot or work place within the region, by following standing orders and procedure laid down for effecting intra region transfers.

27. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the 2nd respondent and the consequential order of the 3rd respondent dated 27.02.2020 and 11.10.2020 respectively are set aside.

28. It is made clear that the respondents while effecting transfer shall take note of the present position in which the petitioner is working, having acceded to his request for being allowed light work. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.