IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27711 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- B.SURESH, AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, SURESH BHAVAN,NEDUNGOLAM P.O, SOUTH PRAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW TRASNFERRED AS EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR TO EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, KALPATTA,WAYANAD DISTRICT FROM KUNNATHOOR EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. THE JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOLLAM 689 001. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LIJU STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011, ALONG WITH C.O.C. NO.1316 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 27711 of 2011(L) ----------------------------------- APPENDIX ------------ PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.2011. EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT INCLUDING THE STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SHOWING THAT PETITIONER IS THE PERSON TO DETECTED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF NDPS CASES IN THE STATE OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF AN INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 23.6.2008. EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.10.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------ / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:27711 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th November, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as an Excise Circle Inspector at Kunnathoor, Kollam district. As per Ext.P1 order the petitioner has been transferred to the Excise Circle office, Kalpetta, Wayanad district. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1. According to the petitioner he is a person who has detected the maximum number of offences during his tenure as an Excise Inspector and Circle Inspector. He has given the details of the number of cases that he has detected in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. It is his further case that he has been awarded the medal of the Chief Minister of Kerala in the year 2008 apart from a good service entry and seven cash awards, besides various appreciation letters. 2. The petitioner's contention is that he has joined as Excise Circle Inspector at Kunnathoor Circle Office only on 8-8-2010. However, as per Ext.P1 dated 26-9-2011 he has been transferred. According to him, his transfer is vitiated by malafides. By detecting the maximum number of abkari offences and narcotic WPC 27711/2011 2 offences, he has earned the ill-will of powerful people who control the said illegal activities. His transfer is alleged to be at the instance of the said people. According to him, though Ext.P1 shows that he has been transferred for the reason that two persons had died after consuming liquor on 25-9-2011, the said persons had died due to dehydration caused by excessive consumption of alcohol and lying in the sun for a long time. According to him, his transfer has been made under the influence of the persons who controlled the illicit liquor business. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate orders setting aside his transfer. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. According to the second respondent, the persons who had died after consuming liquor had consumed illicit liquor purchased by one of them. The fact that illicit liquor was available within the Excise Range was taken serious note of by the authorities and the Excise Inspector who was in charge has been placed under suspension. The petitioner who was the Excise Circle Inspector has been moved out of the said place and a vigilance enquiry has been ordered into the incident. Therefore, according to the second respondent, the petitioner has been moved out of Kollam range for the reason that he had not take effective steps to monitor and WPC 27711/2011 3 prevent the sale of liquor through illegal outlets within his area. Since the petitioner's transfer was necessitated by the peculiar circumstances that were taken into consideration by the second respondent, it is pointed out that his transfer has been made on administrative grounds and that the same does not suffer from any infirmity. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Pleader at length. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously. 5. Ext.P1 transfer order narrates the circumstances under which the transfer has been ordered. The order is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference:- “The Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kollam vide letter referred above has intimated the death of two persons in Sasthamkotta in Kollam Division and reported that the cause of death is suspected to be due to the excessive consumption of liquor and dehydration due to lying under the sun for a long time. Preliminary enquiry conducted by the Excise Commissioner revealed that there is serious lapse and dereliction of duty on the part of Sri. B.Suresh, Circle Inspector of Excise, Kunnathur in preventing illegal sale of liquor by unauthorized person under his jurisdiction. WPC 27711/2011 4 Hence, Sri. B. Suresh, Circle Inspector of Excise, Kunnathur is transferred and posted to Excise Circle Office, Kalpetta in the existing vacancy due to the above incidents at Kollam division on 25-9-2011 in which two persons died, until further orders. The Officer on transfer will be relieved forthwith after making necessary arrangements by Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kollam. The date of relief and joining duty shall be intimated to this office accordingly.” 1. 6. The second respondent has therefore passed the above order on the basis of a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kollam reporting to the said authority about the death of two persons in Sasthamkotta in Kollam division. It has been mentioned that death was “suspected to be due to the excessive consumption of liquor and dehydration due to lying under the sun for a long time.” Though the suspected cause of death was excessive, consumption of liquor and dehydration caused by lying in the sun for a long time, the next sentence in the order shows that according to a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Excise Commissioner serious lapse on the part of Shri. B. Suresh, Cirlce Inspector of Excise, Kunnathur who is the petitioner herein was detected. His lapse was in WPC 27711/2011 5 preventing illegal sale of liquor by unauthorized persons under his jurisdiction. It is for the said reason that the petitioner has been transferred to the existing vacancy at the Excise Circle Office, Kalpetta. 7. The counsel for the petitioner contended that since the cause of death was due to excessive consumption of liquor and exposure to the sun, there was no lapse on his part. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the post mortem reports of the persons who had died would reveal that the cause of death was due to excessive consumption of liquor and not anything else. It is also contended that the transfer is motivated by extraneous consideration and that the authority was acting under the influence of the illicit liquor lobby. 8. Though the above allegations have been levelled, there is absolutely no evidence or material available in this case to warrant any such conclusion. As noted above, the order Ext.P1 states that the transfer has been necessitated in the circumstances referred to therein. In paragraph 1 of the statement filed by the second respondent also it has been stated that the report of the Excise Commissioner revealed that one of the deceased had consumed liquor after buying it from a person who was selling the liquor WPC 27711/2011 6 unauthorisedly and illegally within the Sasthamkotta range. Prima facie therefore, it was found that the Excise Circle Inspector of the Excise Range Office, Sasthamkotta had not prevented such illicit sale of liquor within his jurisdiction, “ in spite of input in this regard given by the Intelligence Wing of the department and strict direction given by the Excise Commissioner.” For the above reason Shri. K. Radhakrishnan Excise Inspector was placed under suspension on 26-9-2011 and the petitioner was transferred to the Excise Circle Office, Kunnathur. The above statement of the second respondent further support the reasons stated in Ext.P1 that the petitioner has been moved out only in the wake of the peculiar situation into which a vigilance enquiry has also been ordered and is pending. The contention of the petitioner therefore that Ext.P1 is not in public interest or on grounds of administrative exigency has to fail. It is therefore found that Ext.P1 has been issued for the reasons stated in the said order and explained in the statement of the second respondent. 9. According to the petitioner he has got various domestic and family problems which entitles him to be considered for a convenient posting to any one of the districts close to his native place. He has set out his domestic problems in detail in Ext.P5 WPC 27711/2011 7 representation which is pending before the second respondent. The learned Govt. Pleader on the other hand submits that throughout the petitioner's career the petitioner has somehow or the other managed to remain posted in Kollam or Kottarakkara district. Therefore, it is pointed out that he cannot insist that he would not work in any of the other districts. Since I have already found that there are no grounds to interfere with Ext.P1, I do not propose to go into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner regarding his personal problems. Ext.P5 is submitted and pending consideration of the second respondent. Therefore, it is sufficient that the said aspects are considered by the said authority. 10. For the above reasons while dismissing this writ petition I direct the second respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, evidenced herein by Ext.P5 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge WPC 27711/2011 8