IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18802 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.JAYASREEMONI, AGED 47, SARANNYA, EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. SMT.M.KABANI DINESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DR. RAJUKUTTY, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SMT. B. SULEKHA, NURSE GRADE II, DISTRICT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. BY GP SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).18802/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is First Grade Nurse in the Department of Indian System of Medicine, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the District Medical Officer, Kollam, by which she has been transferred from District Ayurveda Hospital, Kollam, to the Government Ayurveda Hospital, Thalavoor, which, according to her, is a place more than 50 Kms away from the present station. Fourth respondent has been posted in the place of the petitioner. 2. Ext.P1 order shows that apparently petitioner’s transfer is on account of certain allegations against the petitioner. A preliminary fact finding enquiry has been conducted in that regard. On an earlier occasion, petitioner had approached this Court in Writ petition No.15859/2008, which was disposed of under Ext.P7 judgment, requiring the Director of Indian System of Medicine to pass an order on the petitioner’s representation against Ext.P1. This resulted in Ext.P9 W.P.(C).18802/2008 2 affirming the stand taken in Ext.P1. Exts.P1 and P9 have been challenged in the writ petition. 3. Referring to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I had called for the files leading to Ext.P1 order and also the files containing the papers which led to Ext.P9. I have perused the same in detail. I have had a look at the complaints which was the subject matter of the preliminary fact finding enquiry referred to in Ext.P1. I have also seen the statement signed by the petitioner. It cannot be said that the decision to transfer the petitioner under Ext.P1 was not based on any materials. But it has to be remembered that the fact finding enquiry was a preliminary one and obviously cannot be treated as part of any disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. If it is decided to conduct any such enquiry, it must be done independently and obviously after complying with the provisions of K.C.S (C.C & A) Rules. 4. In the result, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of transfer. Transfer is within the District W.P.(C).18802/2008 3 and in the circumstances, it need only be treated as one on administrative exigencies. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the transfer is intended only to accommodate the fourth respondent. I have gone through the files and I am not in a position to accept the said submission. There was more than one complaint against the petitioner by former patients of the Distrtict Ayurveda Hospital and there was a fact finding enquiry as such. Petitioner’s version is also recorded. 6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is seriously put to hardship on account of transfer. The fact that her husband is a Jawan and that she has to look after her only one daughter, who is prosecuting a P.G course at Karyavattom in Thiruvananthapuram, highlights the difficulty that will be caused to the petitioner. She is called upon to travel a distance of 50 kms every day. Further difficulties that will be caused to her daughter are also highlighted. W.P.(C).18802/2008 4 7. In my view, this aspect merits a consideration by the Government. In the circumstances, if the petitioner moves the Government for a posting in a place nearer to Kollam, so as to enable her to travel from Kollam to the place of her residence every day, her request shall be considered by the Government without reference to Exts.P1 and P9. If such a representation is filed within two weeks from today before the third respondent, same shall be considered within three weeks thereafter. Request made by the petitioner for a posting in the manner aforementioned, shall be considered without reference to the pendency of any enquiry that may have been instituted against the petitioner. Further, the Director of Health Services shall ensure that the enquiry against the petitioner, if pending, is completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs