IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21379 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BYJU E.S., SUB ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) (KSEB), ELECTRICAL SECTION, IRINJALAKUDA NO.I. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (H.R.M.), KERALA SERVICE ELECTRICITY BOARD, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (H.R.M.), VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DY. CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, IRINJALAKKUDA. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & 2 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 &2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 21379/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPRECIATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, IRINJALAKKUDA, OF KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DT 22.6.09, TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER FROM ELECTRICAL SECTION NO.1 TO ELECTRICAL SECTION NO.II. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DT 18.7.09 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER TO THE GENERATION CIRCLE AT MEENCUT IN IDUKKI. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY NO.A.P.I.O/09/2277/2-12-2009, OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KSEB, IRINJALAKUDA. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21379 OF 2009 (N) ===================== Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Sub Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He challenges Ext.P3 order issued by the 1st respondent transferring him from Electrical Section, Irinjalakuda to Generation Circle, Meencut in Idukki District. According to the petitioner, since Ext.P3 itself says that the transfer is on disciplinary grounds, since transfer is not a punishment, it is impermissible for the authorities to transfer him and therefore, Ext.P3 order is illegal. 2. Respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit. According to the 1st respondent, a complaint against the petitioner was received alleging that he has been demanding bribe from consumers. It is stated that on receipt of the complaint, Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Irinjalakuda directed Executive Engineer, Electrical Division to conduct an enquiry into the matter and to submit a report. Report was submitted stating that there was substance in the complaint. It was also reported that there were several complaints against the petitioner harassing the consumers and demanding bribe. It is stated that the work WPC 21379/09 :2 : related to the post of Sub Engineer held by the petitioner was connected with the public and in view of the above allegations, it was decided to shift the petitioner from the present place and it was therefore that Ext.P3 was issued. 3. In the nature of the averments in the counter affidavit as noticed above, I cannot say that the transfer of the petitioner was not in the exigencies of service. When allegations of serious nature are raised against an employee, there is nothing wrong in the employer shifting the employee from the post held by him, even in the absence of any disciplinary action, which always is the prerogative of the employer. Such an order also cannot be said to be of punitive nature. Therefore, no grounds have been made out invalidating Ext.P3. 4. Writ petition is dismissed. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is desirous of getting any posting to any nearby area, it is upto him to move the 1st respondent, in which event, the 1st respondent will consider the application. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp