Madras High Court· 20 August 2026

Does a transfer effected pursuant to a complaint made against an employee become punitive in nature by that fact alone?

Kandhan Karunai.V v. Directorate of Medical Education

WP.2199/2023 · 2026:MHC:3556 · WP No. 2199 of 2023
Coram: Justice C.Kumarappan

🔖 Save this judgment 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Every transfer effected pursuant to a complaint against an employee cannot, by itself, be construed as punitive in nature. The administration is entitled to take bona fide decisions in order to ensure the effective and smooth functioning of an institution so as to maintain a conducive atmosphere, and the competent authority may effect a transfer to maintain discipline and a peaceful atmosphere in the institution; such a transfer cannot always be branded as punitive.

Headnote

Service Law — Administrative transfer — Incidence of service — Malice in fact and malice in law — Judicial review — Service Law — Administrative transfer — Incidence of service — No vested right to a place of posting — Held: An administrative transfer is an incidence of service and a condition of service, and no employee has a vested right to insist upon a particular place or post of posting; the choice of posting lies within the domain of the administration. (¶8) Service Law — Administrative transfer — Judicial review — Mala fides, arbitrariness or statutory violation — Held further: A transfer effected on administrative grounds is not open to interference in judicial review unless shown to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness or statutory violation; a personal grievance of the employee is no ground. (¶8) Service Law — Punitive transfer — Complaint against an employee — Not by itself punishment — Held further: A transfer effected pursuant to a complaint against an employee cannot by itself be construed as punitive; the administration may act bona fide to maintain discipline and a conducive atmosphere in the institution. (¶7, ¶13) Service Law — Mala fides — Pleading and proof — General allegation insufficient — Held further: An allegation of mala fides is general and unsustainable where no individual is impleaded in personal capacity and the petitioner does not demonstrate whether malice in fact or malice in law is asserted. Writ Petition dismissed. (¶13, ¶14)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 7Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the impugned transfer is punitive in nature, this Court is of the firm view that every transfer effected pursuant to a complaint against an employee cannot, by itself, be construed as punitive in nature. The administration is entitled to take bona fide decisions in order to ensure the effective and smooth functioning of an institution so as to maintain a conducive atmosphere. Though the petitioner would contend that the transfer was effected with mala fide intention and with a view to causing inconvenience to him, no specific individual has been impleaded or identified in personal capacity against whom such allegations of mala fides are made. The allegation of mala fides is, therefore, general in nature and appears to be based on the personal perception of the petitioner.

Paragraph 13Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, though the petitioner has raised an allegation of mala fides, he has not been able to demonstrate before this Court the nature of such mala fides, namely, whether the same constitutes malice in fact or malice in law. If the petitioner intends to contend that the transfer is vitiated by malice in fact, the same cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case, particularly when there was a complaint against the petitioner alleging harassment of students. The competent authority is entitled to take appropriate administrative measures to maintain discipline and a peaceful atmosphere in the institution. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned transfer cannot either be construed as malice or be termed as punitive in nature. Hence, this Court does not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Kandhan Karunai.V v. Directorate of Medical Education — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is an order of transfer made on administrative grounds open to interference in judicial review, and on what grounds?What must a person alleging that an order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides demonstrate?Is a public servant justified in not joining at the transferred place while questioning the order of transfer?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections