IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1109 of 2010(K) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.S.SREEKUMAR, S/O.A.K.SANKUNNI PAYIKKADU HOUSE, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM (WORKING NOW AS EXCISE GUARD KOTTAYAM RANGE OFFICE). BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ERATTUPETTA. 5. P.M.MAJEED, WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------- WP(C) NO.1109 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, an Excise Guard working in the Kottayam Excise Range Office, challenges Ext.P1 transfer order. He has been transferred to Excise Range Office Erattupetta. According to the petitioner, during the span of 12 years from 1997 to 2009 that he has been working in the department, he has been transferred 13 times. At the same time his allegation is that there are many excise guards who have continued to remain in the same station for the last 10 years, without being transferred. The petitioner has mentioned the names of one Mr.P.V.Biju and Mr.Lenin who are serving in the same station for the last 10 years. According to the petitioner, his transfer is vitiated by malafides and is liable to be set aside invoking the jurisdiction under of article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Government Pleader on instructions submits that the petitioner and two others, Sri. Anandaraj and Sri.M.K. Babu were facing allegations of misconduct for which disciplinary action is WP(C) NO.1109/2010 2 under contemplation. As a preliminary step to initiation of disciplinary proceedings, they have been transferred to a nearby place. According to the learned Government Pleader, the posting of the petitioner is not to a far away place. The same is necessitated in public interest and therefore does not call for any interference. 3. Heard the counsel appearing for the contesting parties and have considered the contentions anxiously. 4. Ext.P1 order states that the transfer and posting are made on administrative convenience. The Government pleader has on instructions submitted that the petitioner has been transferred from his present posting in anticipation of disciplinary proceedings that are about to be initiated into the allegations of misconduct against him. The Deputy commissioner of Excise, Kottayam is authorised to conduct a detailed enquiry and follow up action would be taken only on the basis of such enquiry. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges against the petitioner are all false and baseless and that enquiry itself has been initiated only after the filing of this writ petition to justify the WP(C) NO.1109/2010 3 transfer. However, there are no materials or evidence to warrant any such conclusion. 5. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that if the petitioner has any grievance, he can file a complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Kottayam. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the transfer order, Ext.P1. Therefore, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, the petitioner is free to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kottayam, if he has any grievance in the matter by preferring a representation. If such a representation is made, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kottayam shall consider and dispose of the same expeditiously. In the above circumstances there will be no order as to costs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. sou.