DR.A.KHALEEL AHMED vs THE DIRECTOR
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 28.09.2026
Pronounced on 16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 18359 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011160442024}
and
WMP No. 20166 of 2024
Dr.A.Khaleel Ahmed
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director
(Formerly Known as Commissionerate)
Indian Medical And Homeopathy,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai-600 106.
2. The Secretary
Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai.
3. The Principal i/c,
Govt. Unani Medical College,
Chennai-600 106.
4. Dr.Mubasheera Begum,
Reader, Govt. Unani Medical College,
Chennai-600 106.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the
order of the 1st respondent made in Transfer and posting order dated 21.06.2024
in REF. No.4574/ E2/ 1/ 2024-1 and Relieving order dated 25.06.2024 in
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
REF.No.879/ E/ GUMC/ 2024 passed by the 3rd respondent and to quash the
same and to forebear the respondent from in any manner proceedings with the
transfer order against the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi,
Special Government Pleader (for R1 to R3)
Mr.B.Bala Vijayan (For R4)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
transfer order dated 21.06.2024 and the consequential relieving order dated
25.06.2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer on 15.10.2010 and was
subsequently promoted as a Lecturer. It is his submission that the petitioner is
the senior-most faculty member next to the present incumbent to the post of
Head of the Department of General Medicine. It is also his submission that,
with a mala fide intention to deprive the petitioner of his promotion, and at the
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
instigation of the fourth respondent, a charge memorandum was issued against
him, the operation of which was subsequently stayed by this Court in
W.P.No.27495 of 2023. However, despite the interim order passed by this
Court, the respondent authorities effected the transfer of the petitioner as a
punitive measure. The learned counsel would further submit that, when the
proceedings pursuant to the charge memorandum itself had been stayed, the
transfer of the petitioner on the basis of the allegations levelled against him is
nothing but punitive in nature. He would further contend that the impugned
transfer was effected only at the instigation of the fourth respondent. Therefore,
he submitted that the impugned transfer order is liable to be interfered with by
this Court.
4. Per contra, the said contentions were stoutly opposed by the learned
counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and would contend that the
petitioner was originally her student and that he had disrespected and ill-treated
her in the presence of the students. It is his submission that the fourth
respondent is far senior to the petitioner, as she was recruited in the year 2000,
whereas the petitioner was recruited only in the year 2010. The learned counsel
appearing for the fourth respondent would further submit that, being a faculty
member of the College, the fourth respondent has nothing to do with the
issuance of the charge memorandum, which was issued by senior IAS officers,
over whom the fourth respondent has no control or authority. Therefore, the
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
contention that the charge memorandum was issued at the instigation of the
fourth respondent is purely imaginary and devoid of any basis. Hence, he
prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
5. In addition to the above submissions, the learned Special Government
Pleader would submit that the fourth respondent entered service on 24.07.2000,
whereas the petitioner entered service only on 15.10.2010. Accordingly, the
learned Special Government Pleader contended that the fourth respondent is far
senior to the petitioner. He would further submit that a charge memorandum
was issued against the petitioner on 12.08.2023, alleging inappropriate
behaviour towards female students, pursuant to which an Enquiry Officer was
appointed and a departmental enquiry was conducted. However, only the
passing of the final order pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings was stayed by
this Court.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the
transfer was effected to ensure a peaceful atmosphere for the students pursuing
their education in the College. Whenever a complaint of this nature is received,
it is expected of the authorities concerned to take appropriate administrative
measures to ensure that the educational pursuits of the students are not
hampered. In the case in hand, the contention of the petitioner that the transfer is
punitive in nature is an exaggerated version of the facts. The petitioner was
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
transferred to Ramanathapuram only in the interest of administrative
convenience and to provide a conducive and positive atmosphere for the
students. The fourth respondent has no role whatsoever in the transfer. Hence,
he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strongly
contend that the impugned transfer order transferring the petitioner from
Chennai to Ramanathapuram was issued only at the instigation of the fourth
respondent. In the case in hand, though the petitioner would contend that he is
senior to the fourth respondent, the admitted factual position is that the fourth
respondent was recruited in the year 2000, whereas the petitioner was recruited
only in the year 2010. The petitioner has also not disputed the fact that he was a
student of the fourth respondent. The case projected by the petitioner is that,
with a view to depriving him of his promotion, a false charge memorandum was
issued against him at the instigation of the fourth respondent. However, the fact
remains that a charge memorandum was issued against the petitioner alleging
inappropriate behaviour towards female students.
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
9. The issuance of the charge memorandum is not in dispute. The
contention of the petitioner is that the operation of the said charge memorandum
was stayed by this Court. However, on a perusal of the order passed in
W.M.P.No.26941 of 2023, filed seeking an interim order in the connected
W.P.No.27495 of 2023, it is evident that this Court had not stayed the charge
memorandum itself. On the contrary, the interim order was confined to the
passing of the final order pursuant to the charge memorandum.
10. In the case in hand, though the petitioner has not furnished a copy of
the charge memorandum, on a perusal of the counter affidavit, it is seen that the
allegation against the petitioner relates to his alleged inappropriate behaviour
towards a female student. Therefore, the respondent authorities are duty-bound
to ensure a peaceful and conducive atmosphere for the students to pursue their
education in a better environment. When complaints were made by the students
alleging inappropriate behaviour on the part of the petitioner, which resulted in
the issuance of the charge memorandum, and when there was no stay of the
enquiry proceedings but only a restraint on the passing of the final order, this
Court is of the firm view that the authorities, in the exercise of their
administrative powers, are entitled to take appropriate measures in the interest
of the institution and its students.
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
11. Administrative transfers are incidental to service and conditions of
service. When transfer is an incidence of service, ordinarily no application or
writ is entertainable before the Court of Law. An application or writ against the
order of administrative transfer is entertainable, if the transfer order has been
issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or allegation of mala
fides are raised. Even in case of raising an allegation of mala fides, the
authorities against whom such allegations are raised, must be impleaded as a
party-respondent in their personal capacity.
12. Place or post can never be the choice of an employee. Organisational
requirements and public interest are of paramount importance. Transfers are
unavoidable in Government Departments for efficient public administration,
which is a constitutional mandate. Courts cannot interfere with day-to-day
administration of the Government Departments / Organisations. Such
interference undoubtedly would cause prejudice to the interest of efficient
administration. It is the prerogative of the Executive Authority to take decisions
regarding transfer and posting of an employee in a particular fact situation.
Interference in administrative transfer orders are beyond the realm of the power
of judicial review.
13. In the case of Shilpi Bose and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others
reported in AIR 1991 SC 532, the Apex Court reiterated that the Courts should
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
not interfere with the transfer order, which is made in public interest and for
administrative reasons. Unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any
mandatory statutory rules or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant
holding a transferable post have no vested right to remain posted at one place or
the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any
of his service rights. If the Courts continue to interfere with the day-to-day
transfer orders issued by the Government and the authorities, there will be
complete chaos in the administration, which would not be conducive to public
interest.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tushar D. Bhatt
vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 11 SCC 678, head as follows:
“16. The legal position has been crystallised in a number of
judgments that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are
made according to administrative exigencies.
17. In the instant case, in the entire tenure of more than 18
years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant's
transfer order cannot be termed as mala fide. The appellant was
not justified in defying the transfer order and to level allegations
against his superiors and remaining unauthorisedly absent from
official duties from 11-10-1999 to 27-4-2000 i.e. more than six
months. In the interest of discipline of any institution or
organisation such an approach and attitude of the employees
cannot be countenanced.
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
15. No doubt, a transfer may have certain repercussions and may affect
the personal convenience of an individual. However, the personal convenience
of an individual cannot outweigh the administrative requirements of the
institution.
16. In the case in hand, the principal contention putforth by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned transfer is punitive in
nature. However, this Court is unable to accept the said submission, as the
petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings on allegations of inappropriate
behaviour towards a female student, though the passing of the final order
pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings had been stayed by this Court. The
mere passing of an interim order restraining the authorities from passing the
final order would not, by itself, curtail the administrative powers of the
authorities to take appropriate measures to ensure a peaceful and conducive
atmosphere for the students.
17. Once a complaint of this nature is received, a duty is cast upon the
authorities concerned to ensure a safe and conducive atmosphere for the
students. Permitting a person against whom complaints of inappropriate
behaviour towards female students have been made to continue in the same
premises, may create an unfavourable atmosphere to the students and the same
would adversely affect their educational pursuits. As rightly contended by the
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
learned Special Government Pleader, the authorities are entitled to consider the
overall welfare of the students and the smooth functioning of the institution
while taking an administrative decision.
18. In view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that the transfer of
the petitioner subsequent to the issuance of the charge memorandum cannot, by
itself, be termed punitive in nature. When serious allegations have been made
against an individual, it is for the competent authority to take an appropriate
administrative decision in the interest of the institution and the organisation. In
the case in hand, having regard to the complaints against the petitioner and the
administrative reasons put forth by the respondents, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned transfer order warranting interference in the exercise
of its power of judicial review.
19. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
To
1. The Director
(Formerly Known as Commissionerate)
Indian Medical And Homeopathy,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai-600 106.
2. The Secretary
Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai.
3. The Principal i/c,
Govt. Unani Medical College,
Chennai-600 106.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
2026:MHC:4258
WP No. 18359 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
Pre-Delivery order in
WP No. 18359 of 2024
16-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )