IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35593 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.270/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------- K.S.MAYALEKSHMI, W/O.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, 44 YEARS, POSTAL ASSISTANT, KAYAMKULAM HEAD POST OFFICE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, R/AT.LEKSHMIPIRYA THULAMPARAMBU SOUTH, HARIPAD BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES MAVELIKKARA. 2. POSTMASTER GENERAL CENTRAL REGION, COCHIN-18. 3. CHIEF POASTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 5. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR CAT BUILDING, MANAPPATTIPARAMBU KALOOR, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.35593 OF 2008 S ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a Postal Assistant working under respondents 1 to 4. She was working at Kayamkulam for the last more than three years. While so, by Annexure A7 order, she has been shifted from Kayamkulam Head Office to work as Sub Post Master, Kayamkulam College P.O. The petitioner's tenure of four years at the station was nearing completion. She is a native of Haripad and she was aspiring to get transfer to that station. In view of the present shifting from Kayamkulam, she has to work there for another four years to get a transfer to Haripad. So, feeling aggrieved by Annexure A7, O.A.No.270/2008 was filed before the CAT, Ernakulam Bench. The petitioner submits, though the ground given in Anenxure A7 is interest of service, in the reply statement filed, defending Annexure A7, the respondents have stated that the petitioner committed a misconduct, as she failed to give a statement regarding the telephone revenue collected and deposited W.P.(C)No.35593/08 -2- by one Smt.B.Lalita, the Sub Post Master of Nooranad Sanatorium P.O. The petitioner was asked to give a statement, as part of the inquiry into the misconduct of misappropriation committed by the said postal employee. The petitioner declined to give the statement and thus, she committed a misconduct. Instead of suspending her, she was transferred to another Post Office, in the same town. According to the petitioner, the above stand taken in the reply statement would show that the power of transfer has been abused in this case. So, the transfer is vitiated, it is submitted. But, the CAT accepted the contentions of the respondents and dismissed the O.A. Hence this Writ Petition. 2. It is not in dispute that the appointing authority or the Officer authorised to exercise the powers of that authority should be conceded freedom to transfer any employee in exigencies of service or in the interest of service. In this case, the failure of the petitioner to give the required statement is admitted. Her explanation is that she wanted to consult her husband, before giving the statement. In the face of the admitted misconduct W.P.(C)No.35593/08 -3- from the part of the employee, the action taken by the appointing authority is only a flea bite and the petitioner should be grateful for not suspending her. Disciplinary action should have been taken, having regard to the belligerent attitude of the employee. The contention of the petitioner that for a misconduct, as an interim measure, she cannot be transferred out from the present station, is plainly untenable. We uphold the view taken by the CAT. The petitioner has been transferred in exigencies of service and normally courts have no business to interfere in that transfer. Further, we notice that the petitioner is a native of Haripad and the place where she is working is Kayamkulam, which is connected by a High Way and 30 minutes bus journey will take her from the residence to the place of work. In every minute, there are buses connecting the two stations. So, the petitioner is demurring unnecessarily. In fact, the respondents have done a favour to her by transferring her and not suspending her. We hold that no ground has been made out to interfere with the transfer. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The W.P.(C)No.35593/08 -4- observations made by us will not affect the contentions of the writ petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, if any, that may be initiated against her for her failure to give the statement. In other words, the disciplinary authority and the inquiring authority shall render their findings uninfluenced by our observations. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn