TASMAC directed to install CCTV cameras in all liquor shops and monitor them from regional offices

The petitioners, who were working as salesmen and a supervisor at TASMAC Shop No. 7928 in Thiruvaiyaru, challenged the District Manager’s order dated 9 January 2025 transferring them to other places.

They alleged that the transfers followed a complaint made by petitioner Kodeeswaran against the fourth respondent, Govindaraj, and were made at Govindaraj’s instance; a copy of the complaint dated 28 August 2024, bearing the District Manager’s seal, was included in the papers.

The Court had granted an interim stay on 5 February 2025, allowing the petitioners to continue at the shop.

After the District Manager disputed receipt of the complaint, the Court directed the first respondent to inquire into it.

The first respondent subsequently reported that it intended to conduct transparent transfer counselling.

Whether the petitioners’ transfers, which they alleged were connected to a complaint against the fourth respondent, should be quashed.

Whether the respondents could address the transfer dispute through transparent transfer counselling and related administrative measures.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking certiorarified mandamus against the transfer order.

The Court cited no statute, precedent, or detailed substantive test for reviewing the transfers.

Its stated approach was to permit the respondents to consider transfers through transparent counselling rather than transfer an employee on the ground of allegations, and to ensure proper administration through CCTV cameras in TASMAC shops monitored from the Regional Offices.

The Court initially stayed the transfers after considering the petitioners’ account and the complaint bearing the District Manager’s seal.

When the District Manager denied that there was material showing receipt of the complaint, the Court directed an inquiry; the first respondent’s report then proposed transparent transfer counselling.

In light of that proposed process, the Court disposed of the petitions with liberty to the respondents to decide the matter during counselling, rather than make transfers on allegations alone.

It also directed CCTV installation and monitoring as measures to support proper administration.

It directed the respondents to ensure that CCTV cameras were installed in all TASMAC shops and monitored from the Regional Offices.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.