IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31115 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- D.PRASAD, S/O.LATE P.K.DAMODARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, ASSISTANT, KSBC LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., P.B.NO.2263, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., FL9 WAREHOUSE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI. ELVIN PETER. P.J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.31115 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, an Assistant in the Secretariat, is presently working on deputation as Assistant in the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', for short. By Ext.P3 order dated 15/10/2008, the Managing Director of the Corporation transferred out the petitioner from Pathanamthitta and posted him as Shop Assistant in FL1- 201, Thamarassery. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he has been transferred to a far away place for extraneous considerations and that no incident of the kind referred to in Ext.P3 has ever happened. 2. I have heard Sri.Biju Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation. The WP(C) No.31115/2008 -2- learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P3 order of transfer is the outcome of a concerted effort to remove him from Pathanamthitta, for the reason that he did not oblige the Manager in the Warehouse of the Corporation at Pathanamthitta. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer evidenced by Ext.P3 is malafide and is therefore liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that on a complaint received from the employees of the Corporation, an enquiry was conducted, which disclosed that it was not conducive to retain the petitioner at Pathanamthitta. Based on the report of enquiry, the Managing Director of the Corporation decided to transfer the petitioner from Pathanamthitta, it is submitted. The learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that the transfer evidenced by Ext.P3 was made to ensure efficiency in administration and maintenance of discipline and that, such an order of transfer WP(C) No.31115/2008 -3- cannot be interfered with. The learned standing counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramachandran Nair Vs. Director of Training & Another, (1992(3) ILR Kerala 149) in support of the said submission. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Corporation. The learned standing counsel for the Corporation had made available to me for perusal, a copy of the complaint received against the petitioner and also a copy of the report of enquiry conducted into the said complaint. From the said materials, I notice that the co- workers of the petitioner had raised five items of charges against the petitioner regarding his style of functioning. The enquiry report discloses that many of the items of charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be true on enquiry. In the light of the findings in the enquiry report, the Managing Director of the Corporation decided to transfer WP(C) No.31115/2008 -4- out the petitioner with a view to maintain discipline in the establishment. This Court has, in Ramachandran Nair Vs. Director of Training & Another (supra), held that an order of transfer issued with a view to maintain discipline and to ensure efficiency in administration cannot be held to be punitive in nature. In the instant case, it has been established in the enquiry that the continuance of the petitioner in the Warehouse of the Corporation at Pathanamthitta is not in the best interests of the Corporation. The Managing Director of the Corporation therefore decided to transfer the petitioner. The competence of the Managing Director to transfer the petitioner is not disputed. The pleadings disclose that it was to ensure discipline in the establishment that the petitioner was transferred out. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P3. 5. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the object sought to be achieved by WP(C) No.31115/2008 -5- transferring the petitioner from Pathanamthitta, could have been achieved by posting him to a nearby district, instead of transferring him to far away Wayanad district. Whether the petitioner can be accommodated elsewhere in another station in a neighbouring district is essentially a matter for the Managing Director of the Corporation to decide. If the petitioner is desirous of seeking a posting in a district other than Pathanamthitta, it will be open to him to move the Managing Director in that regard. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) jg