IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4800 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.R. REMAKUMARI, BUILDING INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN -R1 AND R2 ADV. SRI. P.K. MANOJ KUMAR -R3 -SC FOR TVM. CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 4800 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Building Inspector in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. She is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order dated 18.1.2010, whereby she has been transferred to Kozhikode Corporation in an open vacancy. Ext.P1 would reveal that the transfer order was based on the recommendation of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau and that as per the said recommendation, the petitioner along with another person were transferred out of Thiruvananthapuram District with a specific direction not to transfer back the incumbents till the completion of investigation of the case. Against Ext.P1 order of transfer, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 Review Petition dated 11.2.2010 before the Government. 2. The specific contention of the petitioner is that she has been transferred as per Ext.P1 in connection with an incident which occurred on 15.3.2006, which led to the registration of a crime as V.C. No.3 of 2009 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, SIU under Section 13(2) read W.P.(C) NO. 4800/2010 2 with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. If that be so, there is substance in the contention of the petitioner that after allowing her to continue in Thiruvananthapuram District for about four years, there is no reason to transfer her all of a sudden on account of the pendency of the said proceedings. Ext.P1 does not reveal that registration of V.C. No.3 of 2009 is the reason for effecting transfer. Taking into account the said circumstance, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 Review Petition filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that if the transfer ordered as per Ext.P1 is only in connection with V.C. No.3 of 2009, then the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation itself till a decision is taken on Ext.P2. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 4800/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 4800/2010 JUDGMENT 15th February, 2010