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

Higher government officials can no longer take shelter under the hackneyed, ritualistic and cliched expression ‘administrative reasons’ for transferring subordinates from one district to another. They have to prove the administrative exigency through sufficient material when transfer orders are attacked on the ground of malice, the Madras High Court has held.

Justice V. Parthiban said the term ‘administrative reasons’ could not be taken at face value to deny relief to litigants. The verdict was passed while quashing the recent transfer order of a single mother, A. Jayachitra, from Chennai to Tiruvannamalai within one year of her transfer at request from Tirunelveli to Chennai to facilitate her daughters’ studies.

In her affidavit, the petitioner claimed to be the first woman fencing coach in the State. She possessed a doctorate in sports coaching besides having pursued several diplomas in the field of sports and coaching. She was also a recipient of cash award from the Chief Minister for having coached National games gold medallists in fencing.She was appointed as a fencing coach in the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu (SDAT) in May 2012 and was promoted as 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 responsibility of managing the Amma Youth Sports Scheme.

Complaint lodged

In Chennai, she assisted one of her woman colleagues in lodging a sexual harassment complaint against their male colleague with the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). This turned out to be the reason for transferring her to Tiruvannamalai in August as a manager of a women sports hostel that remained shut due to COVID-19, she said.

The SDAT member secretary denied the allegation and said the transfer was necessitated to get the hostel ready before inmates start occupying it. After hearing both sides, the judge said there was something amiss with the transfer order. It raises more questions than answers and it did not appear to be in the true interest of advancement of sports 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 observed.