IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24196 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ YOUSUF P.M. PULLICKAL HOUSE, JOINT BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA (TRANSFERRED) BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHRI.BENNY GEORGE, JOINT BDO (EGS) MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R2 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R2 SRI.S.A.ANAND FOR R2 SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24196/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY BLOCK PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT DT 3.1.2009. EXT.P2: REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT 4.1.09. EXT.P3: CHARGE MEMO GIVEN BY COMMISSIONER-RURAL DEVELOPMENT DT 17.4.09. EXT.P4: REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.6.09. EXT.P5: ORDER OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT DATED 10.7.09. EXT.P6: ORDER OF THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DT 11.8.09. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): LETTER DATED 5.1.2009 OF PRESIDENT VALAKOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R1(b): DECISION NO.1 DTD.16.1.2009 OF BLOCK PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.R1(c): GO(MS) NO.105/2007/LSGD DATED 4.4.2007. EXTS.OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1 DT 16.1.2009 OF THE BLOCK PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE MUVATTUPUZHA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24196 OF 2009 (T) ===================== Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the Joint BDO, Muvattupuzha. 2. In relation to an incident that occurred on 1/1/2009, the petitioner was issued Ext.P1 show cause notice alleging that although the President of the Block Panchayat was invited to inaugurate the function, by the time the President arrived, the function was allowed to be inaugurated by the President of the Grama Panchayat and that the Block Panchayat President was invited to deliver the Presidential address. It is further alleged that when the impropriety in the conduct of the petitioner was pointed out, the petitioner misbehaved with the President of the Block Panchayat. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply where he denied the allegations against him and also submitted that if at all by his conduct, the feelings of the President of the Block Panchayat have been hurt, he was apologetic about the same. 3. While so, by Ext.R2(a) resolution passed by the Block Panchayat, request was made to the Commissioner for Rural Development to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner WPC 24196/09 :2 : and also to transfer him out of the Muvattupuzha Block Panchayat. Apparently in view of Ext.R2(a), he was issued Ext.P3 memo of charges along with the statement of allegations reiterating the allegations mentioned in Ext.P1. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply where he pleaded of his innocence and again expressing his regrets, if by his conduct the President of the Block Panchayat was hurt. Subsequently, he was issued Ext.P5, by which he was exonerated of the charges levelled against him in Ext.P3. 4. Despite Ext.P5 exonerating him, making reference to Ext.R2(a) resolution of the Block Panchayat and also the complaint dated 25/7/09 made by the President of the Block Panchayat, by Ext.P6 order, the petitioner was transferred on public interest and was posted as Joint Block Development Officer at Veliyanad in Alappuzha District. It is challenging Ext.P6 the writ petition is filed. 5. Several contentions are raised by the petitioner. The first contention is that petitioner having been exonerated by Ext.P5, could not have been punished by way of transfer as per Ext.P6. It is also stated that petitioner has not committed any WPC 24196/09 :3 : misconduct or misbehaviour with the President of the Block Panchayat warranting a transfer which is now ordered. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the transfer of the petitioner was strictly in compliance with the provisions of Ext.R1(c) guidelines governing transfer in the Local Self Government Department, which provides that if the Government feels necessary to transfer an employee for the smooth functioning of the office, Government can transfer an employee summarily noting the reason in the transfer order. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.R2(a) resolution of the Panchayat, report was obtained from the Assistant Development Commissioner (General), Ernakulam, which interalia indicated that although Block Panchayat President was scheduled to inaugurate the function held on 1/1/09, it was on the invitation of the petitioner that the President of the Grama Panchayat inaugurated the function. Reference is made to Ext.R1(a) letter of the President of the Grama Panchayat which also substantiates this averment. It is stated that the Block Panchayat having passed unanimous resolution evidenced by Ext.R2(a), Ext.P3 memo of WPC 24196/09 :4 : charges was issued, to which the petitioner filed Ext.P4 written statement of defence. It is stated that by Ext.P5, the disciplinary action was finalised exonerating the petitioner. However, complaint was received from the President of the Panchayat and having regard to the contents of the complaint and also the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Ext.P6 order was issued. It is stated that the transfer order was issued in exercise of the Government's power as reserved unto itself in Ext.P6. They are also making reference to the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and in particular Section 179(4) stipulating that the Government or any authority authorized by the Government can transfer the Secretary at any time. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, the person who is now occupying the place vacated by the petitioner. 8. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P6 amounts to a punishment. As already seen, it was pursuant to the unanimous resolution passed by the Block Panchayat evidenced by Ext.R2(a) that the Government exercised its power under Ext.R1(c) the guidelines governing the WPC 24196/09 :5 : transfer. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no merit in contending that Ext.P6 amounts to punishment. 9. I also notice that having regard to the fact that the Panchayat itself wanted the petitioner to be transferred, and as the resolution in this behalf has been passed and the President having made a complaint, it is not arbitrary on the part of the 1st respondent in having ordered transfer to the petitioner. The defence filed by the petitioner itself show that, though at the spur of the moment and may be even on being provoked, petitioner had behaved with the President of the Block Panchayat in a manner unbecoming of himself. In such circumstances, if the Panchayat thought that it is not desirable to retain the petitioner for the smooth functioning, neither the Panchayat nor the Government can be faulted for ordering his transfer. 10. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded to interfere with the order of transfer. 11. Be that as it may, having regard to the personal difficulties that are pointed out by the petitioner, I feel it is a matter for the Commissioner to examine Ext.R1(c) guidelines. which itself provided for an appeal against the order of transfer. WPC 24196/09 :6 : Despite the lapse of time, it is only appropriate that if the petitioner files an appeal against Ext.P6 seeking accommodation in place nearer to Muvattupuzha, such request of the petitioner deserves to be considered. 12. Therefore, it is directed that if the petitioner files an appeal against Ext.P6 to the Commissioner for Rural Development within 2 weeks from today, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp