IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36362 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL NASSAR,S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU,AGED 51 YEARS,JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT KOLLAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKER'S WELFARE BOARD, KOLLAM,R/AT NO.168, ZEPHYR, THEVALLI PO, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN SMT.VINEETHA B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PB NO.2017, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI 682 018. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KERALA HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, P.B.NO.2017, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH FOR R3. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.36362 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Kollam to Kasargod. According to the petitioner, the transfer is vitiated insofar as it is punitive in nature and the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before issuing the said punitive order of transfer. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 points out that Ext.P3 order is not punitive. It is only in the course of disciplinary proceedings. He points out that but for the transfer, respondents 1 and 2 would have to suspend the petitioner from service. Instead, only transfer has been ordered and therefore the same is in the exigencies of administration. It is pointed out that the petitioner has been served with Ext.P1 memo of charges, to which the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P2 explanation. The standing counsel also points out that the defiant attitude of the petitioner is clear from Ext.P2 explanation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the transfer is against Rule 44 of the Kerala Headload Workers' Staff Regulations. 4. I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction w.p.c.36362/10 2 in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly Ext.P1 charge memo has also been issued to him alleging very serious misconduct on his part. In Ext.P2 the petitioner has tried to make out that this is an action against the union and not against the petitioner himself. The misconduct alleged against him is subversive of discipline and the attitude of the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P2 explanation, is defiant in nature. In the above circumstances, I do not find anything wrong in transferring the petitioner pending disciplinary proceedings. Rule 44 does not come into the picture insofar as this has only been issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings and in the exigencies of service. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge