‘Administrative reasons’ not enough to justify transfer orders: HC

Higher authorities officers can not take shelter underneath the hackneyed, ritualistic and cliched expression ‘administrative reasons’ for transferring subordinates from one district to one other. They have to show the executive exigency by means of adequate materials when transfer orders are attacked on the bottom of malice, the Madras High Court has held.

Justice V. Parthiban mentioned the time period ‘administrative reasons’ may not be taken at face worth to deny aid to litigants. The verdict was handed whereas quashing the latest transfer order of a single mom, A. Jayachitra, from Chennai to Tiruvannamalai inside one 12 months of her transfer at request from Tirunelveli to Chennai to facilitate her daughters’ research.

In her affidavit, the petitioner claimed to be the primary lady fencing coach within the State. She possessed a doctorate in sports activities teaching apart from having pursued a number of diplomas within the discipline of sports activities and training. She was additionally a recipient of money award from the Chief Minister for having coached National video games gold medallists in fencing.She was appointed as a fencing coach within the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu (SDAT) in May 2012 and was promoted because the District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer in Tirunelveli in February 2019.

She was transferred to Chennai as Manager-IV, SDAT, in September 2019 and was entrusted the duty of managing the Amma Youth Sports Scheme.

Complaint lodged

In Chennai, she assisted certainly one of her lady colleagues in lodging a sexual harassment grievance towards their male colleague with the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). This turned out to be the explanation for transferring her to Tiruvannamalai in August as a supervisor of a ladies sports activities hostel that remained shut due to COVID-19, she mentioned.

The SDAT member secretary denied the allegation and mentioned the transfer was necessitated to get the hostel prepared earlier than inmates begin occupying it. After listening to each side, the choose mentioned there was one thing amiss with the transfer order. It raises extra questions than solutions and it did not seem to be within the true curiosity of development of sports activities administration, he added.

“It is always very difficult for a litigant to establish malice in fact in the action of the authorities. What goes on in the cerebral decision-making process of the authority is beyond the comprehension and discernment of any judicial mind to conclusively hold that the authority has based and founded his decision in the alleged context as asserted by the petitioner in the affidavit.

“Such consideration in the factual realm would only lead to slippery inferences and beyond the pale of judicial certainty. At the same time, on objective consideration, this court can draw safe inferences on the basis of the entirety of facts and the circumstances in order to fathom whether the impugned transfer was passed for administrative reason or for other reasons.

“Malice in fact may not have been conclusively established in this case, but malice in law appears to have actuated the present order of transfer. It is well within the power of the court to pierce the veil of the fig leaf behind the transfer order and to hold that the impugned action of the respondent authority stemmed from a colourful exercise of power,” Justice Parthiban noticed.