IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 976 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4251/2009 Dated 31/03/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. N. SARATHCHANDRAKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. R. NARAYANAPILLAI, NURSE, GOVERNMENT HOMEO HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT MEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALODE - PACHA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.M. ANILKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.V.P. MONI, GOVERNMENT HOMEO HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, MEPPUKADA, MALAYINKEEZHU.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HOMEOPATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT HOMEO HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMOEO), KANNUR. 5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMOEO), KASARAGOD. SR.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.976 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are the writ petitioners. They filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order transferring them from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur and Kanhangad. They challenged the said transfer order alleging that it was a punitive action. Any punitive action should be preceded by a proper enquiry with notice to them. They raised the contention that the transfer was punitive, mainly, relying on Ext.P2 proceedings of the Director of Homeopathy, as per which, they were warned of disciplinary action, if any misconduct is repeated in future. The respondents contented that they were transferred in public interest and on administrative exigencies. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition upholding the contentions of the respondents. Hence, this appeal. 2. The appellants submit that now they have come across Annexure-A enquiry report submitted by the District Medical W.A.No.976/2009 2 Officer (Homeo). Based on some anonymous complaint, an enquiry was held and the said officer submitted a report stating that the appellants are trouble-makers and their presence is not conducive to the smooth functioning of the hospital. The appellants submit, the findings in that report are unsustainable and further they were made behind their back. So, the transfer order based on the above report was unsustainable. 3. This Court can interfere with a transfer, if only, it is shown to be illegal or vitiated by malafidies. We notice that no such ground has been made out. There are allegations against the appellants. They may be correct or may not be correct. In the context of such allegations if the appointing authority thinks that the appellants should transferred out ,we find nothing illegal about it. Such action cannot be said to be vitiated by malafidies also. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps