IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20425 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- J.BASHEER, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT ARIF MANZIL, KULLOORMUKKU, KALLAMBALAM, KARAVARAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON SRI.KABIR MUHAMMED M. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE FINANCE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. J.C.LEELA, JOINT DIRECTOR OF TRESURIES, DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. N MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.20425 OF 2010 (C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1 order the petitioner was transferred and posted at Thiruvananthapuram in the Directorate of Treasuries as Junior Superintendent. According to the petitioner, based on Ext.P1 he joined duty on 13.4.2010. It is stated that immediately thereafter by Ext.P4 dated 26.6.2010,he has been transferred and posted to Kottayam. It is this order which is under challenge. Counsel submits that Ext.P4 has been issued in violation of the guidelines under which he is entitled to continue in Thiruvananthapuram itself. 2. Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that since the time the petitioner joined at Thiruvananthapuram, he has not been discharging duties satisfactorily. It is stated that the last incident was on 21.6.2010, when the petitioner refused to collect the daily collection reports of fixed deposits which were required for use in the conference regarding revenue of deposit mobilizations. It is stated that on account of this memo dated 24.6.2010 was attempted to be served WPC.No.20425 /2010 :2 : on the petitioner but the petitioner refused to receive the same and disappeared from the office. It is stated that it was on account of these reasons the petitioner has been transfered to Kottayam, where work load is lesser as compared to Thiruvananthapuram Office. 3. If as stated by the respondents, petitioner has not been discharging the duties to the satisfaction of the authorities, this court will not be justified in directing the respondents to retain the petitioner tolerating his lapses. Therefore, having regard to the facts pointed out, I am satisfied that the transfer of the petitioner is justified. 4. Although the counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgments of this court and contended that the order of transfer is issued in violation of the guidelines, as this court has repeatedly held that if exigencies of service warranted, guidelines can be departed from. In such circumstances this court will not be justified in exercising its powers under Artl.226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Counsel for the petitioner then contended that even if the allegations are assumed to be correct there is no reason why the WPC.No.20425 /2010 :3 : petitioner should not have been accommodated in any one of the offices in Thiruvananthapuram itself. In my view, in a situation like this, the petitioner cannot have any choice and the choice where an employee should be accommodated should be left to the authority concerned. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/