IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23537 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.V.SURESH BABU, ASSISTANT SECURITY OFFICER, TRAINING DEPARTMENT, RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM-9. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE RUBBER BOARD, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R2-3 SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN FOR R2-3 SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R2-3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, A.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.23537/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KL/12/12/07 DT. 23.10.2007 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE COMMISSION. P2:- COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.388 DT. 14.12.82. P3:- COPY OF THE OFFICE CIRCULAR NO.3/23/06 /EST DT. 13.7.06 ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BOARD. P4:- COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.3/24/1/2008/EXT DT. 24.7.08. P5:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN REUEST THE PETITIONER PRESENTED BEFORE THE DEPUTY SECRETARY. P6:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN REUEST THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY. P7:- COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER THE PETITIONER HAVE SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 21.6.08 OF THE JOINT RUBBER PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER. R2(b):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.1/2008 DT. 2.7.08 OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (P&A). R2(c):- COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DT. 4.8.08 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR (TRAINING), RUBBER BOARD. R2(d):- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 6.8.08 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 23537/08. R2(e):- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DT. 28.1.08 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN TO THE PETITIONER. R2(f):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDEDR DT. 14.3.97 TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE RESPONDENTS 2 & 3. R2(g):- COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT DT. 2.4.97 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY , RUBBER BOARD. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 23537 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard V.S.Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner, who was formerly a Police Constable was appointed as Assistant Security Officer in the Rubber Board as per Ext.R2(f) appointment order dated 14-03-1997. One of the terms of the appointment was that the appointment carries with it the liability to serve in any part of India. The petitioner’s first posting was in the Rubber Research Institute at Puthupally in Kottayam district where he joined duty on 2-4-1997. In the year 1999 the petitioner was transferred to the Head Quarters of the Rubber Board at Kottayam where he worked till June 2002. In June 2002, he was transferred to Chethakkal in Pathanamthitta district. While he was working as Assistant Security Officer at Chethakkal in Pathanamthitta district there was a quarrel between the petitioner and Sri.M.R.Asok Kumar, Junior Assistant Gr.I on 7-11-2006. In respect of the said incident the petitioner is facing disciplinary action and Ext.R2(e) Memorandum issued in January, 2008 indicates that the disciplinary action is in the final stage. Shortly after the said incident, which led the disciplinary action, the petitioner was transferred to the Regional Rubber Research Institute at Puthuppally on WPC:23537 OF 2008 2 19-12-2006. While matters stood thus by Ext.P4 order dated 24-7-2008, he was transferred to the office of the Rubber Board at Guwahati in Assam. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner who belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community contends that he was always being subjected to harassment at the hands of his colleagues and superior officers and that incident which took place on 7-11-2006. was one such act of harassment. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that one post of Assistant Security Officer was shifted to Zonal officer, Guwahati on the request made by Zonal Officer in Ext.R2(a) letter dated 21-6-2008 and as the senior among the two Assistant Security Officers at Kottayam the petitioner was transferred to Assam. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. By Ext.R2(f) order, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Security Officer. His appointment carried with it the liability to serve in any part of India. Ext.R2(a) letter dated 21-6-2008 sent by the Joint Rubber Production Commissioner in the Zonal Office of the Rubber Board at Guwahati states that the Zonal Office is functioning in the Housefed Complex where a large number of Central/State Government Officers are functioning, that all the other offices have their own security arrangement, that in view of frequent calls for Bundh/Hartals by extremists there is need for the service of a Security Guard in the Zonal office, Guwahati and that a Security officer WPC:23537 OF 2008 3 may be posted in the Zonal office. On receipt of Ext.R2(a ) letter, the Chairman of the Rubber Board issued Ext.R2(b) proceedings dated 2-7-2008 shifting one post of Assistant Security Officer to the Zonal office, Guwahati. Thereafter by Ext.P4 order passed on 24-7-2008 the petitioner was transferred to the Zonal Office, Guwahati. He was also relieved as can be seen from Ext.R2(c) memo dated 4-8-2008. 4. From the materials on record, it is evident that the Board had taken a decision to shift one post of Security officer to the Zonal Office at Guwahati taking note of the request made by the Zonal Office in Ext.R2(a) letter. The stand taken by the Board is that when that request was granted and one post was shifted, it became necessary to transfer one among the two Assistant Security Officers at Kottayam to Guwahati and that as the senior most Assistant Security Officer, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Guwahati. The respondents contend that the transfer was made in the exigencies of service and due to administrative reasons and that the petitioner who is bound to serve anywhere in India cannot challenge his transfer to Guwahati. 5. From the materials on record, especially the Ext. R2(a), it is evident that there was dire need for the services of a Security Guard in the Zonal Office at Guwahati. The Board considered the said request and decided to shift one post of Assistant Security Officer to the Zonal Office at Guwahati. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred and posted in that post. In my considered opinion, the challenge made by WPC:23537 OF 2008 4 the petitioner to Ext.P4 order of transfer cannot in these circumstances be entertained. Ext.R2(a) and the decision taken by the Chairman of the Board on the request made by the Joint Rubber Production Commissioner would indicate that the transfer of the petitioner to Guwahati was in the exigencies of service. Further on the terms of his appointment order, the petitioner was liable to serve anywhere in India. The respondents also state that the petitioner is the senior most Assistant Security Officer and that in view of the situation prevailing in Guwahati a decision was taken to make available his services at Guwahati. In the facts and circumstances of the case, transfer of the petitioner to Guwahati cannot in my opinion said to be arbitrary or illegal. The Board which is the employer has taken a decision to transfer the petitioner bearing in mind the need for the services of Security Officer at the Zonal Office, Guwahati. The petitioner's transfer to Guwahati cannot therefore be characterised as one which is not in the exigencies of service. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P4. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents did not permit him to resume duty at Kottayam, though this court had stayed the order of transfer on 5.8.2008. From Ext.R2(c) letter dated 4-8-2008, it is evident that the petitioner was relieved on 4- 8-2008 the day before the writ petition was admitted and the interim WPC:23537 OF 2008 5 order was passed. Therefore the grievance voiced by the petitioner that he was not permitted to resume duty at Kottayam does not merit acceptance. However, as the petitioner has not so far joined duty at Guwahati, the respondents shall grant him two weeks time to join duty as Assistant Security Officer at Guwahati. The respondents shall also take necessary steps to regularise the period from the date of Ext.P4 order of transfer, till the date on which the petitioners joins duty in Assam as period spent on duty with all attendant benefits. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bps