IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5582 of 2011(W) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- K.N.CHANDRAN, PEON, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN 695 001. 2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF REGISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,ERNALULAM, PIN 682 016. BY GOVT. PLEADER ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 5582 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T While working as a Peon in the office of the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam, the petitioner was transferred to the Sub Registrar's Office, Piravom to accommodate one Mr. V.V. Sathyan. According to the petitioner, that transfer was at a time when there was a ban on all transfers due to declaration of election. Therefore the petitioner has challenged that transfer before this court. The petitioner alleges that to wreak vengeance on the petitioner for approaching this court to redress his grievance, the petitioner was kept under suspension by order dated 02.03.2006 by the District Registrar alleging that the petitioner caused obstruction to his movements and that the petitioner has misbehaved towards him. Later, the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 07.07.2006 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Piravom. W.P.(C)No. 5582 of 2011 -2- Ultimately the order of suspension was set aside and the period during which the petitioner was kept under suspension was treated as duty for all purposes, by order dated 07.03.2009. For the last 5 years the petitioner is working at Piravom. Therefore, for the year 2010, the petitioner has submitted an application for transfer. But it was not considered. The petitioner submitted an application for general transfer this year also. The petitioner came to understand that he would not be given transfer in view of some directions issued by the 1st respondent not to transfer the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner resorted to proceedings under the Right to Information Act and obtained Ext.P5, by which the 1st respondent instructed the 2nd respondent not to transfer the petitioner without obtaining sanction in writing from the central office. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “A. To call for the entire records in this case. W.P.(C)No. 5582 of 2011 -3- B. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P5 to the extent it imposes a ban on the transfer of the petitioner from the present station. C. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd respondents to pass orders on exhibit P4, dehors Exhibit P5. D. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd respondent to issue an order transferring the petitioner to any of the places he requested in Exhibit P4.” 2. The learned Government Pleader today produces before me the instructions received by him from the Inspector General of Registration. In the same, it is stated that the suspension of the petitioner in 2006 was on account of his misbehaviour towards public in the course of his official duties. It is to prevent such recurrence of the bad behaviour of the petitioner towards the public that Ext. P5 order has been issued is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. But the learned Government Pleader submits that the claim of the petitioner for transfer can be considered during the general transfers this year. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. If the petitioner has committed any misconduct, it W.P.(C)No. 5582 of 2011 -4- would be certainly open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader was not able to bring to my attention any provision of law which enables the 1st respondent to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent as contained in Ext.P5 not to give transfer to an employee without prior permission from the central office. As such I am of opinion that the direction in Ext.P5 is unsustainable. It is declared so. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for transfer during general transfers this year in accordance with the norms prescribed for transfers of Government servants. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/