W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order

10.07.2026 03.08.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

and

W.M.P.(MD) No.6455 of 2026

S.Beniskar ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

rep.by its Secretary

Department of School Education

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

2.The Director of Elementary Education

DPI Complex, College Road

Chennai-600 006

3.The Joint Director of Elementary

Education (Admin)

DPI Complex, College Road

Chennai-600 006

4.The Chief Educational Officer

Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District

_______________

Page 1 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

5.The District Educational Officer (Elementary)

Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District-628 501

6.The Block Educational Officer-I (i/c)

Sathankulam Union

Thoothukudi District-628 704

7.S.Rameswaran ... Respondents

[Cause Title amended vide Court

order dated 10.07.2026 in W.M.P.

(MD) No.7971 of 2026]

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue

a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order

passed by the third respondent Joint Director in Na.Ka.No.004478/11/2025

dated 10.03.2026 and the consequential orders passed by the fifth respondent

DEO in Na.Ka.No.1065/A1/2026 dated 14.03.2026 and the sixth respondent

BEO in Na.Ka.No.682/A6/2026 dated 14.03.2026 quash the same enabling

the petitioner to continue to serve as Block Educational Officer-I in

Sathankulam Union.

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar

for M/s.Isaac Chambers

For Respondents:Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan

Counsel for Govt. of Tamil Nadu for R1 to R6

Mr.A.Arun Prasad for R7

_______________

Page 2 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call

for the records in connection with the proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.

004478/11/2025, dated 10.03.2026, issued by the third respondent and the

consequential proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.1065/A1/2026, dated

14.03.2026, issued by the fifth respondent and the proceedings bearing

Na.Ka.No.682/A6/2026, dated 14.03.2026, issued by the sixth respondent

and to quash the same so as to enable the petitioner to continue as Block

Educational Officer-I in Sathankulam Union.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected by the

Teachers Recruitment Board as Block Educational Officer in the year 2022

and was initially posted as Block Educational Officer at Alwarthirunagari

Union, Thoothukudi District, on 16.03.2022 and thereafter, he was required

to participate in the general transfer counselling that took place on

16.05.2025 and accordingly, he participated in the said transfer counselling

and was transferred to Sathankulam Union vide proceedings bearing

Na.Ka.No.004634/11/2025, dated 16.05.2025, issued by the third

respondent. While the petitioner was working as Block Educational Officer in

_______________

Page 3 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

Sathankulam Union, the proceedings dated 10.03.2026 came to be issued by

the third respondent, transferring the petitioner from Sathankulam Union to

Ottapidaram Union, Kovilpatti Educational District and accordingly, the

respondents 5 and 6 issued the consequential proceedings dated 14.03.2026.

3. Aggrieved by the said transfer proceedings, the petitioner has

approached this Court by filing the present writ petition contending that the

impugned transfer order has been issued contrary to the policy decision of

effecting transfers only by conducting a regular transfer counselling once in a

year and also contending that the impugned transfer order has been issued

due to mala fide reasons at the instance of the seventh respondent herein,

who is stated to have made a complaint against the petitioner on the ground of

violation of civil rights. It is also further contended that the petitioner herein

has issued two memos dated 05.01.2026 and 12.01.2026 against the seventh

respondent herein, who has been serving as Assistant under the control of the

petitioner, in connection with dereliction of duty and the seventh respondent,

keeping that in mind, falsely made an allegation of violation of civil rights

against the petitioner herein and only at the instance of the seventh

respondent and to safeguard the seventh respondent, the impugned transfer

order has been issued. It is also further contended that there was an enquiry

_______________

Page 4 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

conducted in connection with the complaint made by the seventh respondent

and a show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner and he has

submitted his explanation in response to the said show cause notice.

According to the petitioner, instead of taking the said proceedings to a logical

end, the official respondents have resorted to transfer the petitioner from

Sathankulam Union to Ottapidaram Union as a measure of punishment, but,

not on administrative grounds as is being claimed.

4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the fifth

respondent filed a counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit, on behalf

of the other official respondents also, contending that the impugned transfer is

only on administrative grounds and there is no mala fide reason. Insofar as

the allegation made by the petitioner against the seventh respondent is

concerned, the official respondents have stated that the enquiry in connection

with the allegation of civil rights was conducted for submitting a report to the

National Commission for Scheduled Castes by the fourth respondent and the

said issue is pending before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes

and the same has nothing to do with the impugned transfer order issued by

the third respondent. It is also further stated that another complaint was

received against the petitioner complaining that the petitioner has sent an

_______________

Page 5 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

inappropriate whatsapp message to a lady teacher and upon examination of

the said complaint, the materials and the records produced during the

enquiry, the allegations made against the petitioner herein were found to be

substantiated and a report bearing Na.Ka.No.3796/A1/2025, dated

24.02.2026, was submitted to the competent authority. Accordingly, the fifth

respondent herein issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 11.02.2026

basing on various allegations made against him and the petitioner has

submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 19.02.2026 and

the said disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the said show cause

notice are pending and it is only in order to avoid the petitioner influencing

the said enquiry proceedings and the concerned lady teacher and to ensure a

fair and impartial enquiry, maintain a congenial working hemisphere, the

petitioner was transferred through the impugned proceedings in the interests

of administration.

5. Heard Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, learned counsel representing

M/s.Isaac Chambers, for the petitioner; Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned

counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents 1 to

6 and Mr.A.Arun Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the seventh

respondent.

_______________

Page 6 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

impugned transfer order has been issued for mala fide reasons at the instance

of the seventh respondent, as the petitioner has issued two memos to the

seventh respondent and an explanation was called for from him. He also

further contended that the impugned transfer is made in the middle of the

academic year and during a non-transferable period and also within a short

span of one year from the date of posting of the petitioner at Sathankulam

Union. He also further submitted that the entire allegations, that are made

against him by a lady teacher, are all false and the petitioner has already

submitted an explanation in response to the show cause notice issued to him

in connection with the said allegations. He further contends that the official

respondents, in stead of taking the said proceedings, that were initiated

against the petitioner herein, to a logical end after affording an opportunity to

the petitioner, have issued the impugned transfer order transferring the

petitioner from Sathankulam Union to Ottapidaram Union and therefore, the

impugned transfer is to be treated as punitive in nature. Thus, it is contended

that the petitioner is said to have been condemned unheard in the guise of the

impugned transfer order. In support of the said contention, he also placed

reliance on a decision of the learned Division Bench of the Principal Seat of

_______________

Page 7 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

this Court in P.Karunakaran vs. Union of India and others , reported in

2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3958 and an Order dated 12.01.2017, passed by the

learned Division Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.Nos.42783 &

42784 of 2016, in G.Prasad vs. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern

Railway and others.

7. On the other hand, Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned

counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents 1 to

6, contended that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of

sending an inappropriate whatsapp message to a lady teacher working under

his supervision in a school situated nearer to his office and he also used to go

to the said school often for having lunch, thereby causing annoyance to the

said lady teacher and therefore, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the

petitioner was also issued with a show cause notice and the official

respondents are contemplating to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the

petitioner. As disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the

petitioner, if the petitioner herein is permitted to continue in the Block

Educational Office at Sathankulam Union, there is every possibility of the

petitioner tampering with the records or influencing the witnesses relating to

the enquiry in question and therefore, the official respondents thought it fit to

_______________

Page 8 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

keep the petitioner away from the Block Educational Office, Sathankulam

Union, and accordingly, he was transferred to Ottapidaram Union, on

administrative grounds. He also further contended that the entire allegations

made by the petitioner stating that the impugned transfer order has been

issued at the instance of the seventh respondent are totally false and the

enquiry that was conducted in connection with the complaint of the seventh

respondent is only for the purpose of submitting a report to the National

Commission for Scheduled Castes. Thus, he contends that the impugned

transfer order has been issued purely on administrative grounds to keep the

petitioner away from the Block Educational Office, Sathankulam Union.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on

either side and also perused the entire materials available on record.

9. No doubt, the impugned transfer order has been issued not in

the process of regular transfer. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was

posted in the present place of posting i.e., Sathankulam Union only on

16.05.2025 and even before he completing one year of service in Sathankulam

Union, he is now sought to be transferred. This Court having taken note of

the same and after perusing the original counter-affidavit filed by the official

_______________

Page 9 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

respondents, which does not disclose the exact administrative ground for

transferring the petitioner, vide order dated 09.04.2026, granted interim stay

of operation of the impugned transfer order and further directed the official

respondents to file additional counter-affidavit disclosing the exact

administrative ground on which the petitioner is sought to be transferred.

10. Accordingly, the official respondents have filed additional

counter-affidavit. A perusal of the additional counter-affidavit filed by the

official respondents, especially Paragraph No.6, would disclose that there are

serious allegations made against the petitioner and an explanation was also

called for from the petitioner on the allegations made against him and the

petitioner has also submitted an explanation. It is also further evident that

the official respondents are intending to initiate disciplinary proceedings

against the petitioner on the allegations made against him. It is only, while

contemplating to initiate disciplinary proceedings on the allegations made by a

lady teacher, including the allegation of sending inappropriate whatsapp

message to the lady teacher, the third respondent has passed the impugned

transfer order. It is only to avoid the interference of the petitioner as the Block

Educational Officer, Sathankulam Union, in the course of the said enquiry,

the petitioner is stated to have been transferred vide proceedings dated

_______________

Page 10 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

10.03.2026 by the third respondent. It is not in dispute that a show cause

notice was issued to the petitioner on the said allegations and the enquiry is

admittedly pending. If that be the case, this Court is unable to see as to how

the transfer of the petitioner can be said to be punitive in nature. If the

petitioner is permitted to continue in the present place of posting, there is

every possibility of the petitioner either tampering with the records or

influencing the witnesses relating to the enquiry in question, especially, in the

context of the fact that the said allegations levelled against the petitioner are

by his subordinate official. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason not

to accept the contention of the official respondents stating that the impugned

transfer order has been issued on administrative grounds. As allegations have

been made against the petitioner, he cannot claim to continue in the very

same place, especially when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against

him.

11. Insofar as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for

the petitioner are concerned, they are the cases, where decisions are rendered

basing upon the facts of those particular cases and the same do not lay down

any law and each case has to be decided on it's own facts.

_______________

Page 11 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

12. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find

any reason to come to a conclusion that the impugned transfer is punitive in

nature or to hold that the same has been issued for mala fide reasons. It is

not in dispute that the impugned transfer order has been issued by a

competent authority.

13. It is also settled law that transfer is an incident of service and

in the absence of any alteration or modification of the service conditions,

transfer cannot be termed as punitive in nature.

14. No doubt, the petitioner is disturbed even before completing

one year of service at Sathankulam Union, in the considered view of this

Court, the facts of the case on hand do warrant transfer of the petitioner

notwithstanding the fact that it is being effected within a short span of time.

15. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any reason

to interfere with the impugned transfer proceedings.

_______________

Page 12 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

16. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Interim order

granted by this Court on 09.04.2026 is hereby vacated. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

..........08.2026

NCC :Yes / No

Index :Yes / No

Internet:Yes / No

Speaking / Non-Speaking Order

krk

To:

1.The Secretary,

Department of School Education,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of Elementary Education,

DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

3.The Joint Director of Elementary

Education (Admin),

DPI Complex, College Road,

Chennai-600 006.

4.The Chief Educational Officer,

Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

_______________

Page 13 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

5.The District Educational Officer (Elementary),

Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District-628 501.

6.The Block Educational Officer-I (i/c),

Sathankulam Union,

Thoothukudi District-628 704.

_______________

Page 14 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

krk

ORDER

IN

W.P.(MD) No.7868 of 2026

and

W.M.P.(MD) No.6455 of 2026

03.08.2026

_______________

Page 15 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis