IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15822 of 2011(C) -------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- PHILIP VARGHESE, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, STATE PLANNING BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM-695 004. BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, STATE PLANNING BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3. T.PRADEEP KUMAR, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676 505 (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER AS U.D.CLERK TO STATE PLANNING BOARD, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004). R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 15828/2011 & WP(C) NO. 15829/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 15822 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E3-3743/2011/SPB DATED 09.06.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GENERAL TRANSFER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.06.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2011. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO. E1-6870(1)/10/SPB DATED 30.09.2010 BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, STATE PLANNING BOARD. EXT.P7 : COPY OF NOTICE OF WARNING NO. E1-8320/2010/SPB DATED 28.2.2011 OF THE MEMBER SECRETARY. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E3.3743(1)/2011/SPB DATED 13.6.201. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF THE FILE NOTES DATED 9.6.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)Nos.15822, 15828 & 15829 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these writ petitions are now working in the office of the State Planning Board at Thiruvananthapuram. They are aggrieved by their transfer to Idukki, Pathanamthitta and Malappuram Districts. According to them, they have been unnecessarily transferred. The petitioners seek the following reliefs: “W.P. (C) No.15822/2011: i. call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same to the extent the petitioner is transferred from State Planning Board, Thiruvananthapuram, to District Planning Office, Malappuram, by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to continue in the State Planning Board Office at Thiruvananthapuram as if Ext.P1 were never issued at all. iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner to District Planning Office, Kollam, on the basis of Ext.P2 application submitted by him. W.P. (C) No.15828/2011: i. call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same to the extent the petitioner is transferred from State W.P.(C)Nos.15822, 15828 & 15829 of 2011 -2- Planning Board, Thiruvananthapuram, to District Planning Office, Pathanamthitta, by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to continue in the State Planning Board Office at Thiruvananthapuram as if Ext.P1 were never issued at all. W.P. (C) No.15829/2011: i. call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same to the extent the petitioner is transferred from State Planning Board, Thiruvananthapuram, to District Planning Office, Idukki, by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to continue in the State Planning Board Office at Thiruvananthapuram as if Ext.P1 were never issued at all. iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner to District Planning Office, Kollam, on the basis of Ext.P2 application submitted by him.” A common statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent which reads as follows: 3. The first petitioner entered service as Lower Division Clerk in the Headquarters vacancy from the rank of LD clerks in Ernakulam District and the second petitioner was appointed as L.D. Clerk though the District Recruitment Board and through the District wise selection in Idukki District and was posted in the Headquarters vacancy. All the persons are working in the establishment section of the State Planning Board for more than four years in the cadre of Lower Division clerk and Upper Division Clerk. W.P.(C)Nos.15822, 15828 & 15829 of 2011 -3- 4. It is humbly submitted that the petitioners were creating problems to the smooth functioning of the office and they were threatening the higher officials and were disrupting the higher officials from doing their official duties. The petitioners along with one Sudhi had blocked the office room of the Senior Administrative Officer for just making a minute in a petition to process and put up the drivers of the office on the request for transfer to their convenient places on the 3rd week of May. The above actions of the petitioners are unwarranted and against the code of conduct and the discipline of the Government Servants. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioners along with one Sudhi had threatened the Senior Administrative Officer and they have disrupted the official duty of the said officer while the Senior Administrative Officer was conducting an enquiry on the missing of the genuine internal memory card of the computer of the former vice-chairman, State Planning Board. The petitioners along with one Sudhi and Sri. Chausjan has interrupted the above said enquiry. As part of the enquiry while the Plan Publicity Officer was serving a notice to the night watchman with regard to the enquiry at about 6 PM on 7.6.2001 the petitioners along with Sudhi had forcefully entered into the room and snatched the notice given T.A.Jayachandran, the night watchman and they threw the notice shouting in a threatening voice that nobody will conduct any enquiry in this place and if he conducts enquriy, he was threatened with dire consequences. The enquiry officer who was afraid of the threats of the petitioner and Sudhi submitted that he may be exempted from the enquriy and he has requested the 2nd respondent to hand over the enquriy to the Vigilance Officer at State Planning Board Smt.Shyla Unnithan. A true copy of the file notes dated 9.6.2011 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(a). 6. It is submitted that the second respondent, Member Secretary after considering all the above facts and circumstances has recorded in the file to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and Sudhi and was also directed to be transfered to their home districts according to the availability of vacancy. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent after taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances has issued Exhibit P1 order transferring the petitioners along with others on the ground of administrative convenience. This respondent is having ample power under the provisions of KS & SSR to transfer any person for administrative convenience, as the transfer is only an incident W.P.(C)Nos.15822, 15828 & 15829 of 2011 -4- of service. The petitioner has no legal right to continue. The 2nd respondent had issued the above orders in public interest and the norms as stated by the petitioners are not to be followed if the said transfers are to be done in public interest. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner in WP(C) 15822/2011 for transfer to Kollam cannot be considered now, as there are no vacancies at present. Exhibit P1 order has not been issued as a general transfer but it was issued due to the circumstances stated above in public interest and administrative convenience. It is further submitted that the above transfers affected as per Exhibit P1 are not request transfer but the transfers are ordered for the administrative convenience. It is further submitted that there is only one vacancy at present in the UD Clerk in the State Planning Board Office, Thiruvananthapuram which is a Maternity Leave vacancy and the other vacancy has already been reported to the Public Service Commission for direct recruitment and hence the petitioners cannot be posted in the above vacancies. 8. It is further stated that there is no malafides in issuing Exhibit P1 order and allegiance to any union is not a ground for issuance of Exhibit P1 order the transfer of Sri.T.Pradeep Kumar from District Planning Office, Malappuram was affected only on account of the complaints received from the District Planning Officer, Malappuram and he has requested this respondent to transferred from District Planning Office, Malappuram and to take suitable disciplinary action against him for the dereliction of duty. It is clear from the above facts that Exhibit P1 order of transfer is not issued to help any person. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner in WP(C) 15829/2011 has produced a Registration Card of the year 2003 of Regional Cancer Center, Thiruvananthapuram and he has stated that he is taking care of his mother who is suffering form cancer. It is submitted that he has produced only the registration card of the year 2003 and the petitioner himself entered service in 2006 through direct recruitment conducted by the District Recruitment Board of Idukki and hence the Exhibit P3 cannot be taken into consideration for allowing the petitioner to continue in Thiruvananthapuram. 10. The functioning of the office will the disrupted if the petitioners are allowed to continue in the said office and hence Exhibit P1 order transferring the petitioner on the ground of administrative convenience and public interest and for the W.P.(C)Nos.15822, 15828 & 15829 of 2011 -5- peaceful functioning of the office is legally correct and in accordance with the rules. Hence it is humbly submitted that this Honourable Court may be pleased to vacate the status quo order and to dismiss the Writ petition with costs to this respondent.” Although the petitioners have filed reply affidavit controverting the averments, I do not think that it is within the scope of these writ petitions to consider the disputed questions of fact. When the concerned respondent has stated that it is for the smooth functioning of the office the transfers have been effected, that is in the exigencies of the service and I do not think that this court will be justified in interfering with those transfers. Accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/