IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29186 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SATHEESH BABU,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.V.RAMAN,KUNNATHU VEEDU,PORKULAM P.O., KUNNAMKULAM,THRISSUR DIST.,PRESENTLY WORKING AS LD CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENG., PWD BUILDING & LOCAL WORKS, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS DIVISION, ERNAKULAM. 5. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDINGS SUB DIVISION, MANATHAWADI, REP. BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 29186/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LETTER BY R4 TO R3. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.25.9.09. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.1.10.09 TO R3. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.8.10.09 BY R2. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.10.09 BY R3. P6. COPY OF THE PETITION P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.25.3.10 BY R3. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.14.10.2010. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.29186 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has been transferred pending disciplinary proceedings. Those disciplinary proceedings ended in Ext.P8 order, whereby the 1st respondent has decided to review the transfer already made, imposing a punishment of warning on the petitioner. The petitioner now submits that although the petitioner is aggrieved by the punishment of imposition of warning, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge that part of Ext.P8, the 1st respondent may be directed to implement the other part of Ext.P8, whereby it has been decided to review the transfer already made. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without prejudice to right of the petitioner to challenge that part of Ext.P8 with which he is aggrieved, the 1st respondent shall implement the other part, whereby the 1st respondent has decided to review the transfer already made, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2