Madras High Court: transfer during pending disciplinary enquiry not punitive merely because it follows a complaint

The Madras High Court has dismissed a government lecturer's challenge to his transfer from Chennai to Ramanathapuram, holding that an administrative transfer does not become punitive merely because it follows a disciplinary charge memorandum. The petitioner, facing a charge memorandum over alleged inappropriate behaviour towards a female student, had earlier obtained a stay of the final order in the disciplinary enquiry. He argued that transferring him afterwards was a punitive measure taken at the instigation of a rival faculty member. Justice C. Kumarappan rejected this, noting that the stay only restrained passing of the final disciplinary order and did not touch the charge memorandum or the enquiry itself, so the authorities remained free to take administrative steps to protect students.

The Court restated settled principles on judicial review of transfer orders: a transfer is an incidence of government service, courts will not interfere with transfers made for administrative reasons or in the public interest, and interference is justified only where the order is made by an incompetent authority or is shown to be mala fide, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat. An employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place, and courts allowing routine interference with transfers would disrupt administration. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.