IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9283 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- OA.322/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- P.PRABHANANDAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.P.KRISHNAN, SR.TICKET EXAMINER, KERALA MANGALA SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT R.S., QUARTERS NO.146-A, RAILWAY COLONY, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR, PALGHAT-9. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARTK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT-9. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT-9. 4. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER (PS), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3. 5. SENIOR PERSONNEL OFFICER, TRAFFIC, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3. 6. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9283/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE O.A.NO.322/2008 WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DT.25.9.2008 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P3: COPY OF REJOINDER DT.23.10.2008 TO THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HOB'BLE TRIBUNAL DT.18.11.2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER IS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DT.14.12.2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.20.2.2009 OF THE C.A.T, ERNAKULAM DISMISSING O.A.NO.322/2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.9283 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The Writ petitioner is the applicant in O.A.N.322/2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondents herein were the respondents in that Original Application. 2. The Original Application was filed, challenging Annexure-A1 order, produced along with Ext.P1 Original Application, transferring him from Palghat Division to Trivandrum Division. He is a Travelling Ticket Examiner. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The allegations against him were that he has indulged in various malpractices which included allegations of demand of bribe from two police constables, who styled themselves as passengers. He was suspended from service on 3.3.2008. Soon thereafter, by Annexure-A1 order, he was transferred. Challenging the said transfer, the Original Application was filed. The respondents W.P.(C).No.9283/2009 2 resisted the application by filing a detailed reply statement. After hearing both sides, the C.A.T, Ernakulam Bench, dismissed the Original Application. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel, Sri.T.C.Govinda Swami, who appeared for the writ petitioner, raised the following contentions before us: The officer, who authorised the issuance of the transfer order, Chief Commercial Manager (Passenger Service), is not competent to transfer him from one Division to another. The second ground is that Annexure-A6 order, interdicts transfer of employees from one Railway to another Railway or from one Division to another Division, who are facing disciplinary proceedings. Thirdly, it is submitted that the transfer is not authorised by Rule 226 of the Railway Establishment Code as no exigencies of service are involved in transferring the petitioner. Finally, it is submitted that the allegations against him are unfounded and therefore, the transfer was unwarranted. W.P.(C).No.9283/2009 3 4. We heard the learned senior counsel, Smt. Sumathy Dandapani, for the respondents. It is common ground that Chief Commercial Manager is competent to transfer the petitioner. But, according to the petitioner, since transfer order was authorised to be issued by the Chief Commercial Manager (Passenger Service), the same is invalid. The respondents relied on a work division order made by the Chief Commercial Manager allotting the functions relating to passenger service to Chief Commercial Manager (Passenger Service). The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that since Chief Commercial Manager is a delegate authorised by the Rules, he cannot further delegate his function. We notice that when there are more than one Chief Commercial Manager, there will be work division. In this case also, functions relating to passenger service have been allotted to one of the Chief Commercial Mangers, who is designated as Chief Commercial Manager (Passenger Service). The same cannot be described as a delegation. Regarding the transfer of employees facing disciplinary action, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on Annexure- A6. But, we notice that the same is a guideline meant for the disciplinary authority pointing out that if a delinquent, who is facing W.P.(C).No.9283/2009 4 disciplinary proceedings, is transferred, the same will cause delay in completing the proceedings. It is a guideline meant to guide the transferring authority. The same does not confer any justiciable right on the writ petitioner/applicant. We notice that in exigencies of service inter divisional transfer is permissible under Rule 226 of the Railway Establishment Code. Transfer of a person who is facing disciplinary proceedings, especially, in an area dealing with the public, is definitely a matter of great public interest. Such a transfer can definitely be described as one made in exigencies of service. The contention of the writ petitioner to the contrary cannot be accepted. The last contention regarding the merits of the case also cannot be upheld by us. Whether he was committed misconduct or not is a matter which is to be decided by the disciplinary authority in the proceedings pending before the said officer. The competent authority, prima facie, felt that the petitioner has committed misconduct and therefore, he has been transferred. Based on the version of the delinquent employee, this Court is not justified in interfering with the same. W.P.(C).No.9283/2009 5 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays, there may be a direction to the disciplinary authority to complete the proceedings at the earliest. For that, we feel that the writ petitioner should approach the C.A.T. first. We make it clear that if the petitioner is cleared of all charges, he will be free to move the competent authority to transfer him back to Palghat Division. Subject to the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps