IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37607 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- M.T.RATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, NOW WORKING AS IST GRADE CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, EDATHVA DEPOT, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL SMT.P.A.PRIYA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE AND ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, THIRUVALLA DEPOT, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. R.K.RADHAKRISHNA KURUP, KSRTC, CONTROLLING INSPECTOR (GENERAL), THIRUVALLA DEPOT, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. STATION MASTER, KSRTC, OFFICE OF THE STATION MASTER, THIRUVALLA DEPOT, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI. V.V.N. NAMBIAR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR K.S.R.T.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rkc ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------------- WP (C) NO. 37607 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a First Grade Conductor in K.S.R.T.C. While he was posted at Thiruvalla depot, complaints were received against him. As a result of which an enquiry has been initiated. It is reported by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation that a police complaint also has been made against him on the allegation that he misbehaved with a lady passenger. As a result of this he was transferred to Edathva. The enquiry and the police complaint are still pending, and in the meanwhile, he wants a transfer back to Thiruvalla. He made a representation and there has not been any response. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that it was because of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner that he was transferred from WP(C)NO. 37607/2009 2 Thiruvalla to Edathva. It is also stated that proceedings are pending and therefore, at this stage, request cannot be considered. Since the proceedings are still pending, at this stage, if the respondents are chosen not to transfer the petitioner back to Thiruvalla, I do not think that, there is any arbitrariness in such decision warranting interference of this court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. rkc