V.SUNDAR vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU,
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:3626
WP No. 31039 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 31039 of 2023
AND
WMP NOS.30684 & 30687 OF 2023
V.Sundar
S/o.C.Velayutham,
No.49, Solapuriyamman Kovil Street,
Shenbakkam, Vellore District 632 008.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By Its Principal Secretary To Government
Adi Dravidar And Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director
Adidravidar Welfare Department, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
3. The District Adi Dravidar
And Tribal Welfare Office, Vellore District,
Vellore -9.
4. S.Gnanasekar,
Driver,
O/o.District Adidravidar Welfare Officer,
Thiruvannamalai District.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
nd
relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2 Respondent in
Na.Ka.No.E4 / 32765 /2022 dated 13/09/2023 and the subsequent impugned
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )
2026:MHC:3626
WP No. 31039 of 2023
nd
proceedings issued by the 2 Respondent in Na.Ka.No.E4/32765 /2022 dated
18/10/2023 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents
rd
1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to continue as Driver in the Office of 3
respondent.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel
For Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Sivalingam,
Govt Advocate For Rr1 To 3
*
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
passed against the petitioner on 13.09.2023 and 18.10.2023.
2.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the impugned transfer order is punitive in nature. He would
further submit that the Constitutional Court has time and again held that no
punitive transfer to be effected. It is also the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel that the transfer order issued to the petitioner is not in accordance
with the prevailing guidelines and that the very transfer from one District to
another District is contrary to the guidelines. He would further submit that
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )
2026:MHC:3626
WP No. 31039 of 2023
the petitioner is a father of two children and on account of his transfer, the
education of his children got affected. Hence, prayed to allow this writ
petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments:-
1. P.Kaliappan Vs. The Director of Town Panchayats and
others [WP(MD).No.7251 of 2020 dated 31.07.2020];
2.Dr.V.Thiyagarajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [WP.No.13637 of
2022 dated 10.08.2022]
4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned
th
Government Advocate and would contend that as on today, the 4 respondent
has already been posted in Vellore and he is also taken charge of the post on
30.10.2023. Therefore, the retention of the petitioner at Vellore is impossible
and the prayer sought for in the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is
also his contention that the present transfer is in the nature of administrative
transfer as the respondent receives frequent complaint against the petitioner.
Hence, to have a cordial atmosphere in the office and to maintain a peaceful
administration, the transfer of the petitioner became essential. He would
further submit that subsequent to the transfer, the disciplinary proceedings
was also contemplated. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )
2026:MHC:3626
WP No. 31039 of 2023
5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
6.The main contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel is that
the transfer of the petitioner from Vellore to Tiruvannamalai is illegal, as
such transfer is only be effected by the Director. However, while perusing the
impugned order submitted by the petitioner, the transfer order was issued by
the Director only. Therefore, the defence of incompetency of the Authority
has no leg to stand.
7.The other ground raised in respect of inconvenience on account of his
children studying at Vellore, by efflux of time, the said inconvenience should
also melt into insignificance as the present petition is pending for almost
three years. Furthermore, while exercising the power of judicial review, this
Court cannot go into the inconvenience of the individual employee and if this
Court attempts to interfere the transfer on the above ground, it is nothing but
micromanaging the department, which is not the duty of this Court and such
conduct would undermine the administrative control of the respondent over
it’s staffs. Therefore, if at all the petitioner wants to have any transfer, he
must request the concerned Authorities and not directly approach this Court.
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )
2026:MHC:3626
WP No. 31039 of 2023
8.Yet another ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel is that, the
guidelines, which were provided for transfer has not been followed with. No
doubt, there is a guideline given by the Government in respect of a transfer in
G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 26.06.2023. However, as rightly contended by the
learned Government Advocate, the same relates to the transfer of the
Teachers and Wardens working in the Government Aided Schools and not to
the persons working in the Adidravidar Welfare Department. Whereas, in the
case in hand, the petitioner is working in Adidravidar Welfare Department.
Therefore, at the first blush, the petitioner cannot have any remedy through
the guidelines.
9.The next aspect is, even if the petitioner has got any benefit out of the
regulation, the non following of such guideline by itself cannot be a ground to
interfere with the transfer, as the regulations do not have any statutory power
and introduced only to maintain transparency. According to the learned
Government Advocate, as against this petitioner, there was several of
complaints that he used to intimidate the fellow staff members, especially
female employees by using the unparliamentary language, and for not
maintaining the confidentiality of the Department, and there is also a specific
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )
2026:MHC:3626
WP No. 31039 of 2023
complaint that the petitioner has intimidated and threatened one full time
sweeper Tmt.Kumari.
10.The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that, had there
been any complaint against the petitioner, the Authority may initiate the
disciplinary proceedings and not order transfer. However, while looking into
the present facts of the case, already the Department is contemplating the
disciplinary proceedings and to substantiate the same, the respondents have
submitted the complaint copy received by the Director, Adidravidar Welfare
Department. Therefore, in the case in hand, apart from transferring the
petitioner, the Department is also contemplating action against him.
11.Mere reference of receipt of certain complaint doest not prohibit the
Authority to transfer the employee on the administrative ground. It is the
duty of the Authorities to maintain a conducive atmosphere to the female
employees at the working place. When a complaint is received against the
petitioner for disturbance of conducive atmosphere, it is the duty of the
Authorities to look into the same and to take immediate remedial measure.
Generally, the immediate remedial measure is to keep away the delinquent at
certain distance, so as to bring immediate confidence to the female
employees. In the case in hand, the Authorities have rightly exercised their
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )
2026:MHC:3626
WP No. 31039 of 2023
discretion and they have also contemplating to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings.
12.In such view of the above circumstances, this Court could not find
any grounds to interfere in the present transfer as the present transfer is not
punitive in nature contrarily there are abundant documents to show that the
transfer becomes imminent on account of the administrative welfare.
Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
13.Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected WMP is also closed.
03-09-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KMI
To
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By Its Principal Secretary To Government
Adi Dravidar And Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director
Adidravifdar Welfare Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The District Adi Dravidar
And Tribal Welfare Office,
Vellore District, Vellore -9.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )
2026:MHC:3626
WP No. 31039 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KMI
WP No. 31039 of 2023
AND
WMP NOS.30684 & 30687 OF 2023
03-09-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )