Kandhan Karunai.V v. Directorate of Medical Education
WP.2199/2023 · 2026:MHC:3556 · WP No. 2199 of 2023
Coram: Justice C.Kumarappan
He must demonstrate the nature of the mala fides alleged, namely whether it constitutes malice in fact or malice in law, and must identify the person against whom the allegation is directed. Where no specific individual has been impleaded or identified in personal capacity, the allegation of mala fides is general in nature and appears to be based on the personal perception of the petitioner, and cannot be accepted. Malice in fact arises where an order is passed without any basis or on irrelevant grounds, as on the basis of an anonymous complaint.
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 5The primordial submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned transfer has been effected on the ground of malice and is punitive in nature. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in R.Mohanasundaram Vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 916, and would contend that a transfer cannot be made by way of punishment under the guise of administrative reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592, and would contend that the impugned transfer order is hit by the principles of malice. While considering Somesh Tiwari’s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained two kinds of malice, viz., malice in fact and malice in law. When an order is passed without any basis or on irrelevant grounds, i.e., on the basis of allegations made against the appellant in an anonymous complaint, the same can be construed as malice in fact.
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 accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India