Petitioner challenged a transfer order issued during disciplinary proceedings. The High Court held that transfer based on administrative convenience does not violate natural justice unless it is a disguised punishment. The petition was dismissed.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932
WP(C).No. 18449 of 2010(E)
PETITIONER(S):
S.KRISHNAJI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER, RESIDING AT 'NAVODHYAM' NEAR KANATHOORKAVU, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT EMPLOYED AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (DESINGING) KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KANNUR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL-R1,R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C). NO. 18449 OF 2010
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P8 order of trasfer dated 2.6.2010. The petitioner is presently working as Development Officer (Designing) at Handveev Processing House, Chirakkal under the Kerala Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the Corporation'). Alleging certain misconduct and dereliction of duty, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Ext.P8 order would reveal that repeated warnings were issued to the petitioner. On coming to the conclusion that his continued presence at the said unit is not beneficial to the Corporation, the respondents decided to utilise his service elsewhere in the Corporation on a trial basis. Ext.P8 would reveal the reasons that prompted for the transfer of the petitioner from the aforesaid unit. True that the petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings and Ext.P8 transfer order was issued as part of the disciplinary action. To redress his grievances, the petitioner had approached the Chief Minister raising certain complaints against the management. The petitioner has
W.P.(C) NO.18449/2010
2
grievances with respect to the working conditions provided for the employees. He has taken up such matters in Ext.P7. It is his grievance that Ext.P8 order was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.
W.P.(C) NO.18449/2010
3
action of the petitioner in approaching the Chief Minister was the real reason behind the issuance of Ext.P8 cannot be appreciated. For all these reasons, I am of the view that Ext.P8 order passed by the respondents calls for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is, dismissed.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.18449/2010
4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C). NO.18449/2010
JUDGMENT
15th June, 2010
W.P.(C) NO.18449/2010 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of transfer of the petitioner, issued during disciplinary proceedings, violates principles of natural justice.
S. Krishnaji
The Managing Director, Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd.
The Production Manager, Handloom Processing House, Chirakkal
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
