IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5193 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LATHA P.P., FIRST GRADE OVERSEER, N.H.SUB-DIVISION, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, N.H.CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, VYTTILA. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (VIGILANCE), P.W.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a First Grade Overseer working in the Public Works Department. According to her, she was in charge of the works in the Kodungallur town and this had facilitated her taking effective steps to remove illegal encroachments on the national highway. According to her, due to political pressure of several persons, a complaint came to be filed by one Noushad, S/o.Kunju Mohammed, before the Chief Secretary raising certain allegations against the petitioner and other officers. Petitioner submits that the Superintending Engineer (National highway) Central Circle, Kochi – the 3rd respondent was appointed as the enquiry officer and he submitted Exhibit P1 on 28.7.2006, inter alia, concluding that the allegations raised are baseless. 2. It seems that the Chief Engineer- the 2nd respondent appointed the 4th respondent to conduct another enquiry. The 4th respondent submitted Exhibit P2 enquiry report taking a view W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008 2 different from that of the Superintending Engineering. According to the petitioner, Exhibits P1 and P2 are by officers of co-ordinate authority in the PWD. 3. Petitioner has submitted Exhibit P3 detailed representation before the Chief Engineer. This was directed to be considered by the Chief Engineer, as per Exhibit P4 judgment. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Chief Engineer had conducted the personal hearing but orders came to be passed by the Chief Engineer. 4. Ultimately, Exhibit P7 order came to be passed by the Chief Engineer directing the transfer of the petitioner from her present station at North Paravur. By Exhibit P8, petitioner is transferred to the Buildings Sub Division, Chittur, Puthunagaram in Palakkad District. Exhibits P7 and P8 are under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Julian Xavier raises two contentions. He firstly submits that Exhibit P1 report seems to have been completely ignored by the Chief Engineer. In fact, reading of Exhibit P7 shows, according to him that the Chief Engineer has not applied his mind to W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008 3 Exhibit P1. He then submits that though the personal hearing, as such was not specifically directed by this Court in Exhibit P1 judgment, nevertheless, hearing was conducted. Then the person who conducted the hearing should have passed an order. In other words, the Chief Engineer alone could pass an order complying with Exhibit P4 judgment. The Chief Engineer should have heard her, it is submitted. 6. I heard the learned Government Pleader Mr.Bejoy Chandran also. Learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that the Deputy Chief Engineer heard the petitioner and submitted a report before the Chief Engineer, but orders were passed by the Chief Engineer. 7. Transfer on pure administrative exigencies will not invite interference by this Court. Transfer in the present case evidenced by Exhibits P7 and P8 is apparently on the acceptance of recommendations contained in Exhibit P2. There are two contra versions in the form of Exhibits P1 and P2. I agree with the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that both are fact finding enquiries and it is open to the Department to consider both the reports and W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008 4 take a suitable decision. But I am constrained to take note of the fact that apparently the Chief Engineer has proceeded on the premise that there is only one report, namely Exhibit P2. In my view, the issue is to be appropriately considered by the Government. It is obviously open to the Government to consider Exhibits P1 and P2 and any other materials which are considered as relevant . In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the 1st respondent in the form of objection to Exhibit P2 as also Exhibit P7. If it is done, within four weeks from today, it shall be considered on merits and appropriate decision shall be taken by the 1st respondent within two months thereafter. Petitioner shall be heard in person by the appropriate authority of the Government before a decision is taken in this regard. Taking note of the submission on either side that the petitioner is yet to be relieved from her present station at North Paravur, I further direct that she shall be permitted to continue in the present station till the Government takes a decision as aforementioned. I make it clear that I have not W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008 5 expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the petitioner and it is obviously up to the Government to take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008 6 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007