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. 15640 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.DEEPTHI, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O. BIJU, AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANT GRADE II, KRISHI BHAVAN, KODIYATHUR KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KODIYATHUR, KOZHIKODE. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU 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. 15640 OF 2010 (D) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 transferring the petitioner from Kodiyathur Krishi Bhavan to Olavanna Krishi Bhavan. The reason stated in Ext.P1 is that irregularities in the implementation of the schemes were brought to the notice of the authorities and that in an enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent, irregularities were confirmed. It is stated that, therefore vigilance enquiry was ordered, and in order to facilitate such an enquiry, transfer of the persons involved were ordered. It is accordingly that the petitioner and others have been transferred. 2. Having regard to the contents of Ext.P1, I do not think this court will be justified in interfering with Ext.P1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific finding against her. In my view, when prima facie involvement is found, authorities are justified in issuing an order in the nature of Ext.P1. Therefore even if specific involvement is not found at this preliminary stage, that will not vitiate the order. Learned counsel WPC No. 15640/10 :2 : then contended that the order is punitive in nature and therefore could not have been issued. As already seen, it is only for facilitating an enquiry that the authorities thought it appropriate to transfer all officers involved and that such an order cannot be said to be punitive. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp