IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12794 of 2009(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A.R. MOHAMMED RAFI, SUPERINTENDENT, K.S.R.T.C., PALAKKAD (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO THALASSERY). BY ADV. MR.VIJU ABRAHAM MR.JOY C. PAUL MR.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.12794 of 2009-T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner is an employee of the KSRTC. He was placed under suspension. Later, memo of charges was issued to him. The proceedings commenced, allegedly, on the basis of an anonymous complaint. Since further proceedings are pending before the employer, I do not propose to record the details of the allegations against the petitioner. Suffice to say that the contention of the petitioner is that the allegations in the anonymous complaint are not sustained in the preliminary enquiry wherein a different set of allegations has cropped up leading to the issuance of the memo of charges. He further states that though the last sentence of the memo of charges essentially concludes on the guilt and there would be no purpose in further conducting WP(C)12794/09 -: 2 :- an enquiry, the preliminary enquiry is allegedly conducted by a person, in rank, below the petitioner. It is also contended that the entire exercise is mere victimization and is a biased procedure on account of the petitioner being a member of the INTUC. He further states that he and his wife are an inter-caste couple and are entitled to protection from being transferred out. The petitioner has been re-admitted to duty. Though he was at Palakkad at the time of suspension, on re-admission, he has been transferred to Thalassery. Petitioner challenges such transfer also. 2.In so far as service in KSRTC is concerned, apart from the disciplinary proceedings which are provided in the normal course, there is an Appellate Tribunal presided by a District Judge to hear appeals from final orders in disciplinary matters. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings cannot, now, be treated as wholly groundless or in total lack of jurisdiction WP(C)12794/09 -: 3 :- requiring the writ court to interfere on any ground of injustice. The petitioner has adequate remedy even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. All such issues are left open. 3.All that may gain some attention is the transfer of the petitioner from Palakkad to Thalassery. Though the petitioner may, as the servant of KSRTC, have free transport in the buses, to the extent permitted, the impugned order of transfer reflects that it is issued as a consequence of the re-admission of the petitioner to duty, re-calling the order of suspension. If that were so, the order of transfer should have been guided only by the principle that the petitioner should not be permitted to meddle with the evidence and could be kept away from the scene of the situs of the enquiry so that he may not influence probable witnesses. In that view of the matter, I deem it necessary that the competent authority takes a second look on the question whether he should be WP(C)12794/09 -: 4 :- transferred out to Thalassery or could be posted in a station nearer to Palakkad where his wife works. For the aforesaid reasons, while refusing to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings and preserving all the contentions of the petitioner in that regard, to be agitated before the appropriate authority at the appropriate time, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner moves the Managing Director of KSRTC by appropriate representation complaining about his transfer to Thalassery, that will be considered sympathetically and in accordance with law, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances. Let this be done within a period of one month from the receipt of such representation. All other issues are left open. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/010609