IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15101 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.V.DINESAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. K.V.KANNAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT GRADE - 1, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., KANHANGAD TALUK DEPOT, KANGANGAD, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI - 682020. 2. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER (P&A) KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI - 682020. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., KOZHIKODE. 4. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER - IN CHARGE, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., KANHANGAD TALUK DEPOT, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SC, SUPPLYCO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15101 OF 2010 (K) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Senior Assistant Grade I, who was working in the Kanhangad Taluk Depot of the respondent Corporation. By Ext.P2 order, he was ordered to be transferred to Palakkad Region. Based on Ext.P2, Ext.P3, a consequential order was issued by the Regional Manager. 2. Thereupon the Petitioner approached this Court and filed WP(C) No.11860/10. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment allowing the Petitioner to make a representation against Exts.P2 and P3 and directing the respondents to consider the same. Accordingly, Ext.P5 representation was filed and the request to retain him at Kanhangad was rejected by Ext.P6. It is this order which is under challenge. 3. The reason stated in Ext.P6 is that the petitioner was responsible for excess indenting of certain goods in the depot. Learned counsel challenges Ext.P6 mainly contending that as per the procedure followed by the Corporation, it is based on the three months average consumption, that indents are placed and WPC No. 15101/10 :2 : that indents are forwarded to the Head Office, which finally approves the indent. It is stated that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the alleged irregularity mentioned in Ext.P6. 4. However, on instructions, learned standing counsel for the respondents submit that as against the requirement of stock worth Rs.4,14,000, by manipulation in the records, petitioner indented stocks worth Rs.10,11,000/-. It is stated that when the irregularity was noticed,, as the petitioner could not be retained at the region, the petitioner was ordered to be transferred by the impugned order. 5. If as stated by the respondents, on noticing the aforesaid irregularity, it was decided to keep the petitioner away from the region concerned, such a decision of the respondents cannot be interfered by this Court particularly in the absence of anything to show that the decision is vitiated for malafides or arbitrariness. 6. Be that as it may, having regard to the grievance of the petitioner that the order has been issued despite the availability of vacancies in and around Kanhangad, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to make a representation to WPC No. 15101/10 :3 : the 1st respondent. It is directed that if such a representation is made, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon within four weeks of its receipt. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp