IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17401 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- SINDHU.V.S, U.D.C, POVERTY ALLIVIATION UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MEERA GOPINATH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PVOERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR - R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).17401/2008-V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PRESIDENT BLOCK PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/05/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/05/2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE HON'BLE MINISTER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.14390/EST.C/3/8/DRO DATED 07/06/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED AGAINST EXT.P3 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 03/07/2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT R2(a). RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE R2(a): COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT BY THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER ANNEXURE R2(b): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-2474/03/PAU, DATED 07/06/08. // TRUE COPY // Rs/ V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 17401 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as U.D.Clerk in Poverty Alliviation Unit, Thiruvananthapuram. She belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Her husband is working in the Accountant General's Office. It is alleged that on 29.4.2008 the third respondent called the petitioner and Head Clerk to his chambers. The Joint Development Commissioner of DRDA was also present. Apparently one Shaji, the president of the Chirayinkeekzhu Block Panchayat has filed a complaint against the petitioner and the Head Clerk Jayaram. The petitioner's statement is obtained. Apparently, the manner in which the so called enquiry was conducted was represented before the second respondent in Ext.P2. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 order, transferring the petitioner from Trivandrum to Alappuzha District. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P4 is illegal that the transfer is effected as a measure of punishment. This cannot be done. The transfer cannot have a punitive impact. WPC. 17401/2008 2 2. A statement has been filed by the second respondent as directed by this court. Para 3 of the same reads as follows:- “The enquiry report recommended to take disciplinary action against the petitioner Smt.V.S.Sindhu. It also recommended to transfer her from the Poverty Alleviation Unit, Trivandrum. Hence the petitioner was compulsorily transferred to Alappuzha District vide order No.14390/Estt.C3/08/CRD, dated 7.6.2008. The petitioner was relieved form Poverty Alleviation Unit, Trivandrum on the AN of 7.6.2008 itself vide order No.A2- 2474/03/PAU dated 7.6.2008 of the Project Director, PAU, Thiruvananthapuram.” 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit as well. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against Ext.P4 as Ext.P5 before the Government. As against the fact finding report and the conclusions arrived there in Ext.R2(a) the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 before the Government itself. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. D.Kizhore and the learned Government Pleader. It is true that an order of transfer cannot be passed as a punishment. Learned WPC. 17401/2008 3 Government Pleader submits that in this case it is not intended as a punishment, though, no doubt it is a step taken on the basis of Ext.R2(a). For the present, I am satisfied that what is required to be clarified is that the order of transfer need not be considered as a punishment nor should the fact relating to the transfer be treated as a reflection on the petitioner's conduct. If there has to be any assessment of the petitioner's misconduct or any action on the part of the petitioner which may or may not constitute misconduct, then obviously an enquiry in terms of KCS and CCA Rules will have to be done. Otherwise Ext.P4 need not be and should not be treated as a punishment as such. It will only be treated as an order passed in administrative exigencies . Once this position is made clear then it is only appropriate that the petitioner be permitted to prefer an appeal before the Government which she has already done as per Ext. P5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 treating it as an appeal against Ext.P4. Ext.P6 should also be considered in the course of passing orders on Ext.P5. The petitioner shall be heard and orders shall be passed by the first respondent, within WPC. 17401/2008 4 a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V. GIRI, JUDGE. pmn/