IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 7 of 2008() ------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34104/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS IN THE WPC --------------------------------- 1. P.C.JOHN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KURIAN CHACKO, PUKADYIL HOUSE, KRISHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT F.24 - POLICE QUARTERS, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM. (ASI K-4443). 2. T.R.HARIDASAN NAIR, AGED 48, S/O. RAVINDRAN NAIR, MADHU NIVAS, MARIYANTHURUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM. (HC K-4709). 3. R.RAVIKUMAR, AGED 49, S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AMBADIKANDATHIL, VEMBILLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. (HC K-4774). 4. V.K.DAMODARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. P.I.KUMARAN, VELIYAMKKUNNATH HOUSE, PARAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. (HC K-4675). 5. P.D.UNNI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. DIVAKARAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, POLLASSERY, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (HC K-1570). 6. T.M.BIJU, AGED 37, S/O. T.D.MICHAEL, THEKKUMMURIYIL, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (PC K-5810). 7. V.T.SREENIVASAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. V.S.THANKAPPAN, THACHETHU HOUSE, KOTHANALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.(PC K-6097). WA 7/08 2 8. K.V.SANTHOSH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KADAVILAPARAMBIL, POLLESSERY, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (PC K-6411). BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WPC ------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.A.No.7 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petition. They are Head Constables or Police Constables working under the second respondent in Kottayam District. By Ext.P1 order dated 13.11.2007, they were transferred out to Kozhikode and Palakkad Districts on public grounds. They say that the said transfer was made in violation of Ext.P2 norms governing transfer. All of them are facing disciplinary proceedings as evident from Ext.P3 proceedings of the second respondent dated 19.11.2006. The alleged misconduct relates to their involvement in the activities of a political party while they were working in Kottayam District and they have been transferred out to various remote places in the District. Therefore, it is unnecessary to transfer them to Kozhikode or Palakkad, it is submitted. The transfer is vitiated by mala fides. The appellants' apprehension is WA 7/08 -: 2 :- that their service conditions including seniority, etc. may be affected. The learned single Judge, dismissed the writ petition giving them liberty to move the Government pointing out their grievance. In that event, it was also ordered that the Government will consider their representations within one month. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, this writ appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated the aforesaid contentions of the appellants, which they raised before the learned single Judge and prayed for allowing the appeal and for quashing Ext.P1. 3. We notice that the appellants are facing disciplinary proceedings. In such circumstances, the competent authority can suspend them from service. They may be posted to other stations in the same District. They can be transferred out also to other Districts. It is for the competent authority to decide how their case should be dealt with. The said authority has decided to transfer them out of their home District. The police is a disciplined force and normally, this Court should not tinker with the orders of the competent authority passed for maintaining the WA 7/08 -: 3 :- discipline in the force. As evident from Ext.P1, the order of transfer was issued in public interest. The appellants would contend that it is only a camouflage and the transfer is vitiated by mala fides. But we find that there is no material whatsoever to substantiate their contentions regarding mala fides. We find no reason to think that the transfer has been made not in public interest. 4. The apprehension of the appellants that their service conditions, seniority, etc. will be affected is unfounded. The learned Government Pleader submitted that their lien and seniority in their parent unit will be retained and in due course, their claim for re-transfer shall also be considered. This submission will dispel the apprehension of the appellants. In the result, writ appeal is dismissed. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 9/1