IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20324 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JINARAJADASAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOMBATH HOUSE, EDAKULAM DESOM, EDAKULAM P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, IRINJALAKUDA. 5. K.S.JAYARAJ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SECTION NO.1, IRINJALAKUDA. ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU FOR R5 SRI.ASHOK M.CHERIAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, ALONG WITH WP(c) NO.24010/09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOS. 20324 & 24010 OF 2009 ========================== Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T In these two writ petitions, the issue raised is regarding the transfer and posting of Sri.K.S.Jayaraj, Assistant Engineer, petitioner in WP(C) No.24010/09. 2. While Sri.Jayaraj was working as Assistant Engineer at Electrical Section No.11 Irinjalakkuda, he was transferred to Transmission Circle, Thrissur by order dated 6/6/07 on disciplinary grounds. While he was continuing as such, by order dated 31/5/2008, on a compliant made by the petitioner in WP(C) No.20324/09, the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur passed order forwarding his complaint to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau for enquiry and report. Subsequently, as part of general transfer, Sri.Jayaraj applied for transfer back to Irinjalakkuda. The application shows that in Column No.15, he had declared that there was no disciplinary action pending against him, which seems to be a factually incorrect statement. 3. Subsequently by order dated 9/6/09, Sri.Jayaraj was WPC Nos.20324 & 24010/09 :2 : transferred back to Electrical Section 1, Irinjalakkuda. Against his transfer back to Irinjalakkuda, petitioner in WP(C) No.20324/09 filed complaint dated 12/6/09 on which no action was forthcoming. It was thereupon that WP(C) No.20324/09 was filed. During the pendency of that writ petition, by order dated 18/8/09 Sri.Jayaraj was transferred again to Transmission Circle Thrissur and that transfer is called in question by him in WP(C) No.24010/09. 4. Therefore, in so far as WP(C) NO.20324/09 is concerned, in view of the order dated 18/8/09 transferring Sri.Jayaraj back to Thrissur, the challenge has become infructuous. 5. In so far as WP(C) No.24010/09 filed by Sri.Jayaraj is concerned, the order of transfer has been produced as Ext.P5, which does not indicate any reason for transfer. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, after explaining the reasons for the previous transfers from Irinjalakkuda to Thrissur and back, the impugned order of transfer from Irinjalakuda to Thrissur is sought to be justified, as according to them, it was ordered acting upon a complaint that was WPC Nos.20324 & 24010/09 :3 : received from the petitioner in WP(C) No.20324/09. Apart from that, in para 6 of the counter affidavit, the undesirability of allowing the petitioner to continue at Irinjalakkuda also has been explained. But the affidavit foes not indicate that these are the reasons for the transfer. The petitioner in WP(C) No.20324/09 is respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.24010/09. He has filed a counter affidavit producing several documents and contending that there is no justification for retaining Sri.Jayaraj at Irinjalakkuda. 6. The justification of the transfer has to be tested in the light of the transfer order and the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. In the affidavit filed by them, as already stated, apart from the complaint that was received, no other reason is mentioned. In my view, a complaint filed by a stranger, without anything more, cannot be a reason for transferring an officer. Board has no case that the correctness of the allegations were enquired into and were found correct. Therefore, the alleged complaint filed by a stranger by itself could not have resulted in the transfer of Sri.Jayaraj. On the other hand, on independent enquiry or assessment of the allegations, if the Board was satisfied that it was not desirable to retain the person at the WPC Nos.20324 & 24010/09 :4 : station, it may be open to them to order his transfer, but such a course of action was not adopted by the Board and at any rate, the affidavit filed by the Board does not disclose that such a course of action was adopted. Therefore, Ext.P5 order in WP(C) No.24010/09 to the extend Sri.Jayaraj is transferred is set aside. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the authorities taking action on the complaint in accordance with law. Accordingly WP(C) No.20324/09 is dismissed as infructuous and WP(C) No.24010/09 is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp