IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29766 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.MOHANAN, JUNIOR FOREMAN, BINDING (LOTTERY SECTION), GOVERNMENT PRESS, MANNAMTHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT (IN CHARGE), GOVERNMENT PRESS, MANNAMTHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT.S.SALINI, BINDER GRADE II, BINDING SECTION, GOVERNMENT PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R3 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R3 SRI.S.A.ANAND FOR R3 SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R3 SRI.JOVY GEORGE VARGHESE FOR R3 MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29766/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R2. P2 : COPY OF UN OFFICIAL NOTE TRANSFERRING R3 TO THE MAIN BINDING SECTION. P3 : COPY OF COMPLAINT RECEIVED AGAINST R3. P4 : COPY OF COMPLAINT RECEIVED AGAINST R3. P5 : COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED FROM LOTTERY DEPARTMENT. P6 : COPY OF NOTICE FROM THE VANITHA CELL. P7 : COPY OF REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT. P8 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 20/10/2009 BY R1. P9 : COPY OF UNOFFICIAL REPORT TRANSFERRING THE EMPLOYEES TO INTER DEPARTMENT DATED 31/03/2004. P10 : COPY OF UNOFFICIAL REPORT TRANSFERRING ON EMPLOYEE FROM BINDING SECTION TO LOTTERY DATED 27/10/2004. P11 : COPY OF UNOFFICIAL REPORT TRANSFERRING THE EMPLOYEES TO INTER DEPARTMENT DATED 01/11/2004. P12 : COPY OF UNOFFICIAL REPORT TRANSFERRING THE EMPLOYEES TO INTER DEPARTMENT DATED 01/12/2004. P13 : COPY OF UNOFFICIAL REPORT TRANSFERRING THE EMPLOYEES TO INTER DEPARTMENT DATED 30/12/2004. P14 : COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 01/10/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 06/10/2009. R1(b) : COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/10/2009. R3(a) : COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 19/03/2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE VANITHA PARATHI PARIHARA SAMITHI. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.29766 of 2009 (M) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8 order dated 20/10/2009, by which the petitioner has been transferred from the Government Press Thiruvananthapuram to the Government Press, Ernakulam. 2. The petitioner is working as a Junior Foreman in the Lottery Section of the Government Press, Mannamthala, Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext.P8, on the allegation that there are records that he has misbehaved with the 3 rd respondent, pending disciplinary action he has been transferred to Ernakulam Government Press on other duty. According to the petitioner, the transfer has been ordered at the instance of the 3 rd respondent, whose husband is the State Treasurer of the CITU. 3. The respondents have filed counter affidavits. Although, several allegations have been made in the counter affidavit, it is now disclosed that the transfer order was necessitated on account of WP(C) No.29766/2009 -2- Ext.R3(a) dated 19/03/2009, the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, and the findings in Ext.R1(a), the report submitted by the Women's Grievance Cell. It is stated that based on these two documents, disciplinary action is contemplated and that if the petitioner retained at Thiruvananthapuram, that will effect the disciplinary proceedings. 4. The question is whether based on these two documents, an order requiring the transfer of the petitioner is justified. Ext.R3 (a) is the complaint made by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner on 19/03/2009. A reading of this complaint shows that she was complaining that the petitioner misbehaved with her during December, 2008. There is no explanation for this belated complaint. It is seen that on receipt of this complaint, the Women's Grievance Cell issued Ext.P6 notice to the petitioner, conducted enquiry and submitted Ext.R1(a) report. None of the conclusions arrived in Ext.R3(a) show that any findings have been arrived at against the petitioner, except that the working of the petitioner and his wife in the same section has caused heartburn to several of their colleagues. Therefore, there is no finding against the petitioner WP(C) No.29766/2009 -3- even in Ext.R1(a) report. Therefore, Ext.R3(a), which led to Ext.R1 (a), and the conclusions in Ext.R1(a) cannot be the basis of any order requiring the shifting of the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram as ordered in Ext.P8. For that reason, I am inclined to think that Ext.P8 is illegal and is liable to be set aside, and I do so. However, it is clarified that if on any material, the authorities are convinced that any disciplinary action is warranted against the petitioner, this judgment will not stand in the way of the authorities in initiating any such action. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg