IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18449 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.KRISHNAJI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER, RESIDING AT 'NAVODHYAM' NEAR KANATHOORKAVU, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT EMPLOYED AS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (DESINGING) KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., PIN-32/249, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR- 1. 2. THE PRODUCTION MANAGER, HANDLOOM PROCESSING HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11 KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL-R1,R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 18449 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P8 order of trasfer dated 2.6.2010. The petitioner is presently working as Development Officer (Designing) at Handveev Processing House, Chirakkal under the Kerala Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the Corporation'). Alleging certain misconduct and dereliction of duty, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Ext.P8 order would reveal that repeated warnings were issued to the petitioner. On coming to the conclusion that his continued presence at the said unit is not beneficial to the Corporation, the respondents decided to utilise his service elsewhere in the Corporation on a trial basis. Ext.P8 would reveal the reasons that prompted for the transfer of the petitioner from the aforesaid unit. True that the petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings and Ext.P8 transfer order was issued as part of the disciplinary action. To redress his grievances, the petitioner had approached the Chief Minister raising certain complaints against the management. The petitioner has W.P.(C) NO.18449/2010 2 grievances with respect to the working conditions provided for the employees. He has taken up such matters in Ext.P7. It is his grievance that Ext.P8 order was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. As already noticed, Ext.P8 order of transfer would disclose the reasons for effecting the transfer. Though disciplinary action was contemplated and the petitioner was transferred as part of said disciplinary action, that fact by itself cannot vitiate the order of transfer. The question to be looked into is whether there is a desire to impose punishment while ordering transfer. The reasons mentioned above would reveal that the order of transfer does not carry any such desire and in fact, it was ordered pursuant to the decision to utilise the service of the petitioner elsewhere in the Corporation as a trial basis since the respondents came to the conclusion that the petitioner's continued presence at the said unit would not be beneficial to the Corporation. In short, his continuance in the said unit is not conducive to the proper and smooth functioning of the unit. When a transfer is effected on such administrative reasons, this Court cannot interfere with the said order of transfer. The mere assertion that the W.P.(C) NO.18449/2010 3 action of the petitioner in approaching the Chief Minister was the real reason behind the issuance of Ext.P8 cannot be appreciated. For all these reasons, I am of the view that Ext.P8 order passed by the respondents calls for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is, dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.18449/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.18449/2010 JUDGMENT 15th June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.18449/2010 5