IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13419 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHAJIKUMAR G., JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE DMO(H), IDUKKI (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO OFFICE OF THE DMO(H), KASARAGOD). BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA. 4. SMT.P.C.RAJALAKSHMI, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DMO(H), IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13419/2010-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ED1-7/09(2)/DHS DTD. 24/02/09 OF R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER ED1-7/09/DHS DTD. 20/06/2009 OF R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1451/08/DME DTD. 06/01/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ED1-7/2010/DHS DTD. 09/04/10 OF R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O.(RT).NO.858/2010/H&FWD DTD. 10/03/10. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/03/2010 TO THE DHS. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE CASUAL LEAVE PARTICULARS. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF DHS DTD. 02/12/2003. EXT.R3.D: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/03/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.13419 of 2010 (B) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Junior Superintendent under the Directorate of Health Services. While working at the office of the District Medical Officer of Health, Kasaragod, by Ext.P2 order dated 30/06/2010 he was transferred and posted to the Office of DMOH, Idukki District. Subsequently, by Ext.P4 order dated 09/04/2010 he was transferred to Kasaragod District. This order makes reference to Ext.R3(a) letter dated 30/03/2010 of the DMOH, Idukki District, and it is based on the said letter that Ext.P4 order has been issued. Ext.P4 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that as is evident from Ext.P4 itself, it was on the allegation that he was reluctant to co-operate with the DMOH and other staff, for the smooth administration of the Office of the DMOH that he was transferred by Ext.P4. According to him, Ext.P4 is punitive in nature and therefore could not have been issued. WP(C) No.13419/2010 -2- 3. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit, apart from stating that the petitioner has been constantly on leave, it is stated that his performance as Junior Superintendent was unsatisfactory in as much as he was indifferent to his work, was questioning his superiors, was not supervising his subordinates, and was delaying bills. Details of other derelictions of duty on the part of the petitioner also have been explained in the counter affidavit. It is stated that for these reasons, the DMOH issued Ext.R3(a) letter to the DHS and it was therefore that the DHS issued Ext.P4 order of transfer. 4. Thus it is obvious that it was acting upon Ext.R3(a) that the petitioner has been transferred by Ext.P4. As is seen from the counter affidavit and Ext.R3(a), if the petitioner was indifferent to the duties that he has to discharge, and was constantly committing derelictions of duty, I see nothing wrong on the part of the respondents in taking action by transferring the petitioner and getting another suitable Officer posted in his place. Therefore, Ext.P4 discloses exigencies of service and therefore does not call for any interference. WP(C) No.13419/2010 -3- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P4 is punitive in nature and it is impermissible to transfer an employee in the circumstances explained in the counter affidavit. Transfer, admittedly, is not a punishment and the reasons for transfer were explained in the counter affidavit. Therefore, I am not persuaded to think that Ext.P4 is punitive. Another contention of the petitioner is that by Ext.P5 good service entry has been given to the petitioner, and therefore, that belies the allegations against him. In the counter affidavit itself, the respondents have recognised the fact that the petitioner had participated in the rescue operation of the victims of the Thekkady Boat Tragedy and that good service entry was granted to him. While it may be true that good service entry has been granted to the petitioner, that does not absolve the petitioner from discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors, and if unsatisfactory performance is rendered, the respondents are free to take action against the erring officials. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg