Employee can’t claim choice transfer

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad,May 5: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that transfer is incidental to service and no employee can claim any right to be transferred to a particular place.

A division bench comprising Justice Ghulam Mohammed and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar while dismissing a petition filed by Mr P. Yagna Narayan, a sub-registrar, observed that “it is always open to the government to transfer an employee, if the situation warrants in the course of disciplinary action.’’

The petitioner, who was a sub-registrar grade-I at Patamata of Vijayawada, Krishna district, was transferred and posted at Kavutaram in Krishna district on March 2, 2009.

He challenged the transfer orders before the AP Administrative Tribunal and the tribunal dismissed his application on the ground that the petitioner was transferred after following due procedure, there was no illegality or irregularity in the order.
Aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, Mr Yagna Narayana filed a writ in the High Court. The petitioner contended that the impugned transfer order was passed by the government at the behest of the Chief Minister.

He argued that the order was in violation of the executive instructions issued by the commissioner and inspector-general of registration and stamps department on May 31, 2008.

He told the court that according to the memo issued by the IG of registration and stamps, an employee with less than two years of service in the present place of work as on April 30, 2008 should not be transferred.

He said that he has completed one year five months service in sub-registrar office atPatamata.During the course of hearing, the court called the records pertaining to the transfer.

The court found that the anti-corruption bureau conducted a raid in the office of the sub-registrar at Patamata, and the petitioner was found in unauthorised possession of Rs 40,000 and there were other serious allegations against him.

The court also noticed that the director-general of the ACB recommended to the government to take action against the petitioner besides transferring him to a non-focal place.

The bench did not agree with the contention of the petitioner that he cannot be transferred without completion of two years as per the instructions.The court said the contention cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the said instructions are applicable only to the employees who are not facing any allegations or involved in ACB cases.

The court observed that as several allegations were made against the petitioner besides his involvement in the ACB case, there was every possibility of hampering the investigation if he is retained at the place.