IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3650 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JAYAPRASAD.K.P., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (IMMIGRATION WING), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERY, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT `PUSHPA NIVAS', PAZHANTHOTTAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 565. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.DINESH SRI.K.P.MADHU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (INTELLIGENCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (INTELLIGENCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PORT REGISTRATION OFFICER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J --------------------------------- W.P.C.No.3650 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is working as Sub Inspector of Police (Immigration Wing) at Cochin International Air Port is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of transfer by which he has been repatriated to the parent unit at A.R.Camp, Kollam. Repatriation is said to be on public grounds with immediate effect. 2. Ext.P5 seems to be an off shoot of Ext.P2 written complaint, submitted by the petitioner. He alleged the rude behaviour by one of the passengers. Apparently, the petitioner who was only doing his duty, according to him, was abused by the said passenger and this resulted in Ext.P2 complaint. Ext.P3 FIR was also registered. Petitioner submits, the sudden repatriation under Ext.P5 is a malafide action, at the instance of the passenger who is the accused in Ext.P3. 3. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that ,no doubt, it is true that pursuant to Ext.P2 complaint, Ext.P3 FIR has been registered. But it was felt that repatriation to the parent unit might be better and said decision was taken on WPC.No.3650/08 2 administrative exigencies. There is no malafides in Ext.P5, it is submitted. 4. I have heard learned counsel on both sides. In my view, if there is any infraction of the transfer norms or any other reason which vitiates Ext.P5, it is always open to the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the Government, in which case, the Government shall look into the same and take appropriate decision. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the Government in the form of an appeal against Ext.P5 within a period of two weeks from today, in which case, the Government shall take a decision thereon in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, within one month thereafter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) sv. WPC.No.3650/08 3