IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16900 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SURENDRAN E., PEON (SENIOR GRADE), K.S.F.E.LTD., EDAPPAL BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.V.BOSE, MR.VINOD MADHAVAN, SMT.NISHA BOSE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 020. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 020. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, K.S.F.E. LTD., HOSPITAL ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. 4. MOHAMMED ALI, BRANCH MANAGER, K.S.F.E. LTD. HOSPITAL ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.ANIL D. NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 16900 of 2009 - F =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.M.V.Bose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. 2. The petitioner, a Peon working in the first respondent company, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 memo calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him and Ext.P3 memo transferring him from Perinthalmanna to Edappal and also seeking his explanation in respect of the charges levelled therein. 3. The petitioner contends that his transfer from Perinthalmanna to Edappal and the initiation of disciplinary action against him are not warranted. When this writ petition came up on 25.6.2009, the respondents were directed to produce the enquiry report referred to in Ext.P3. A copy thereof has been placed on record as Annexure-A along with the statement filed by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. The enquiry report discloses that the Senior Manger in the Regional Office of the Kerala State Financial Corporation Ltd., Kozhikode had conducted a preliminary enquiry into the complaint leveled by the W.P.(C) No. 16900/09 2 Assistant Manager at Perinthalmanna. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of insubordination and other acts of misconduct. On going through Annexure-A enquiry report it appears that the petitioner was not willing to abide by the lawful instructions issued by the Assistant Manager, his superior officer. The Enquiry Officer also recommended initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner and his transfer from Perinthalmanna. In my opinion, in the light of the findings in Annexure -A report of preliminary enquiry, the decision taken by the respondents to transfer the petitioner from Perinthalmanna to Edappal and the decision taken by them to initiate disciplinary action against him cannot be faulted. 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Ramachandran Nair V. The Director of Training and another (ILR 1992(2) Ker. 149) held that transfer intend to ensure efficiency in administration and maintenance of discipline cannot be interfered with. In the instant case the respondents have transferred the petitioner from Perinthalmanna to Edappal with a view to maintain discipline. Such transfer is certainly one in the exigencies of service. I therefore find no merit in the challenge to the petitioner's transfer from Perinthalmanna to Edappal. As regards initiation of disciplinary action, the challenge to memos of charges is in my opinion premature. By Exts.P1 and P3 the petitioner has only been W.P.(C) No. 16900/09 3 called upon to submit his reply to the show cause notice. It is for the petitioner to reply to Exts.P1 and P3 memos and to meet the allegations leveled against him. The petitioner does not question the competence of the officer who has issued Exts.P1 and P3 memos to initiate disciplinary action against him. Therefore, at this stage it will be premature for this Court to go into the question whether the allegations of misconduct warrant initiation of disciplinary action. I therefore find no ground to interfere with Exts.P1 and P3 also. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. I make it clear that notwithstanding the dismissal of this writ petition, the respondents shall consider whether having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a low paid employee, he can be given a posting nearer to home town without prejudice to the continuance of the disciplinary action against him. A decision in that regard shall be taken within one month from the date on which the petitioner moves the Managing Director of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.