IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4921 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AVIVYAN K.S., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE SANKUNNI NAIR, KIZHIYATH HOUSE, NAYATHODE P.O. 683 572, DRIVER GR.I, KSRTC. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SMT.B.MEERA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, ANKAMALY (CAMP ALUVA), KSRTC BUS DEPOT, ALUVA-683 101. 3. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN, SQ-(I/C) PERUMBAVOOR, KSRTC BUS DEPOT PERUMBAVOOR, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. SRI.P.M.RASAK, SQ CHECKING INSPECTOR, KSRTC BUS DEPOT, PERUMBAVOOR, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.4921 OF 2010 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance is against Ext.P3 order by which he is transferred and posted to Thiruvananthapuram depot of the KSRTC. 2. Petitioner is a driver who was posted at the Angamaly Station of the KSRTC. According to the petitioner, on 16.11.2009 an incident happened which irritated the respondents 3 and 4. It is stated that the petitioner was discharging duties thereafter and that on 11.1.2010 he felt giddiness and as a result of which he had to go to hospital. It is stated that on 13.1.2010 the 4th respondent summoned the petitioner for an enquiry and called upon the petitioner to explain why he did not discharge duty on 11.1.2010. 3. Petitioner submits that, he explained the matter to the 3rd respondent but however he has now been issued Ext.P3 transfer order. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent. It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3. WPC.No.4921 /09 :2 : 4. Irrespective of the version as given in the writ petition, going by the contents of Ext.P3, the reason stated is that the petitioner refused to operate service on 11.1.2010, which caused cancellation of one of the services. If it is so, it is certainly an administrative reason and respondents cannot be faulted for what they have done. 5. On the other hand if there is any truth in what the petitioner submits, this certainly is a matter for the first respondent to examine and consider. Therefore while the petitioner shall comply with Ext.P3, it is directed that the first respondent shall consider Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a coy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.4921 /09 :3 :