IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 28178 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.MOHANAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.N.KUNJAN, ASSISTANT FOREMAN, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT "SRUTHI NIVAS", SREEKARIYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-17. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION(H.1), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR,PRINTING DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERITENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRESS, WAYANAD. 4. SMT.P.AMBIKA KUMARI, ASSISTANT FOREMAN, GOVERNMENT PRESS, WAYANAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ================= W.P.(C).No.28178 of 2008 - D =============================== Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Foreman in the Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram was transferred out by Ext.P3 order dated 3.6.2008 and posted in Government Press, Wayanad. Ext.P3 refers to an enquiry into the complaint that the petitioner had demanded and accepted bribe from a candidate seeking selection to the post of Offset Printing Machine Operator Grade II. It is also stated that a vigilance enquiry was conducted and based on the report of the vigilance enquiry, a decision was taken to transfer the petitioner out of Thiruvananthapuam district. He challenged Ext.P3 in W.P. (C).No.17059 of 2008. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 13.6.2008, this Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction that if the petitioner moves the Government by filing a representation seeking a transfer and posting outside Thiruvananthapuram District, in a place nearer to Thiruvananthapuram, the Government shall consider the same and pass orders thereon within three weeks thereafter. W.P.(C).No.28178 of 2008 - D 2 2. As directed by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation. The Government considered the petitioner's request and directed the Director of Printing to transfer and post the petitioner to Government Press at Vazhoor. Ext.P6 order was thereupon issued by the Director of Printing on 2.7.2008. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation dated 4.7.2008 before the Government seeking a posting in the Thiruvananthapuram Government Press. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C).No.21943 of 2008 in this Court challenging Ext.P6 contending that it is not in tune with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. By Ext.P8 judgment delivered on 30.6.2008, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Government to pass orders on Ext.P5 representation by treating it as an appeal against order of transfer passed by the Director of Printing. The Government thereafter passed Ext.P9 order dated 5.9.2008 rejecting the petitioner's request for a posting in the Thiruvananthapuram Government Press near to the Thiruvananthapuram Central Government Press, where he was formerly working. Ext.P9 is W.P.(C).No.28178 of 2008 - D 3 under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner also prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to post him in the next available vacancy of Assistant Foreman in Thiruvananthapuram. 3. Ext.P9 discloses recites that based on a complaint received from the Chairman of the Kerala Public Service Commission, the Vigilance and Security Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission conducted an enquiry and recommended a vigilance enquiry against the petitioner. The complaint was that the petitioner had demanded and accepted bribe from a candidate seeking appointment as Offset Printing Machine Operator Grade II. A vigilance enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer recommended enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal. Thereupon, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau recommended that the petitioner may be transferred and posted out of the Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly, the petitioner was transferred and posted to Wayanad District and later, he was transferred to Vazhoor. Ext.P9 discloses that as the enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal W.P.(C).No.28178 of 2008 - D 4 against the petitioner is in progress, it would not be desirable to accommodate him in any other Government Press nearer to Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram. 4. I have heard Sri.T.Ramprasad Unni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that an enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal is in progress against the petitioner, he cannot ask for a posting in Thiruvananthapuram in the next arriving vacancy. Ext.P9 discloses that Chairman of the Kerala Public Service Commission had complained that the petitioner had demanded and accepted bribe from a candidate seeking appointment as Offset Printing Machine Operator Grade II in the Printing Department. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance and Security Officer of the Kerala Public Service Commission and later by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. It was based on the recommendations of the said authority, that the Director of Printing and Stationary thought it fit and proper to transfer the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram. On the petitioner moving this Court, the transfer originally made to Wayanad was recalled W.P.(C).No.28178 of 2008 - D 5 and the petitioner was given a posting at Vazhoor which is nearer to Thiruvanthapuram than Wayanad. The petitioner cannot, in my opinion, insist that notwithstanding the above facts, the department should retain him at Thiruvananthapuram. 5. The Apex Court has in State of UP v. Gobardhan Lal (2004(11) SCC 402) held that, this Court cannot, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, act as an appellate authority over the orders passed by the employer, assess the administrative niceties and exigencies of the situation and substitute its decision to that transferring authority. In the instant case, for the reason that a very serious allegation of misconduct, involving demand and acceptance of bribe is levelled against the petitioner, the authorities concerned thought it fit and proper that he should be transferred out of Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner does not dispute that he is facing enquiry before the Vigilance Tribunal. Such being the situation, he cannot demand that ignoring these facts he should be retained at Thiruvananthapuram itself. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has no right to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus W.P.(C).No.28178 of 2008 - D 6 commanding the respondents to given him a posting in Thiruvananthapuram. In the factual situation obtaining in the case, the petitioner cannot claim or be granted the relief sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bkn/-