IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23579 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.SURENDRAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, (KANNALATH HOUSE, ATHIKUZHIKKALAM, CHITTUR P.O. PALAKKAD - 678 101. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, ADV. SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KSEB, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, PALAKKAD. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. ANIL.K.S, S,C, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23579/2008-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE R.4. DT. 15/06/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE R.4. BY THE TRADE UNION DT. 20/05/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY. EXT.P.3.B: COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY. EXT.P.3.C: COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPORT OF PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY DT. 24/05/08. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 30/05/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 10/06/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.4. DT. 30/07/2008. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE R.2. DT. 01/08/2008. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE R.4. ADDRESSED TO THE R.4. DT. 21/07/2008. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23579 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.C.K.Abdul Rehim, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Assistant holding additional charge of Senior Superintendent in the Electrical Section at Chittur, in Palakkad District. The petitioner is the State level Organizing Secretary of the Kerala Electricity Employees Confederation, which owes allegiance to the Indian National Trade Union Congress. On 19.5.2008, he visited the office of the fourth respondent in connection with official matters. There was an exchange of words between him and Sri. Sivanandan, Office Attendant, in the office of the fourth respondent. Sri.Sivanandan is a member of Kerala State Electricity Board Workers Association, owing allegiance to the C.I.T.U. The Division Secretary of the said service association W.P.(C) No.23579 of 2008 2 sent Ext.P2 letter dated 20.5.2008 along with Ext.R3(a) complaint from Sri.Sivanandan to the fourth respondent requesting that disciplinary action may be initiated against the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P2, the fourth respondent directed the Divisional Accountant in his office to conduct a preliminary enquiry. After preliminary enquiry, the Divisional Accountant submitted Ext.P4 report which reads as follows:- “ From the statement of the witnesses it is evident that the two had heated exchange of words over private matters and the outburst was instantaneous. But the timely intervention of the staff fellow staff and restraint on the part of Sivanandan averted a major clash and they retreated cool tempered. In inquiry, union activities also are projected as a contentions issue between them. Allegation in the complaint that he was abused by caste could not be established.” 3. On receipt of Ext.P4 report, the Executive Engineer issued Ext.P5 memo of charges accompanied by Ext.P6 statement of allegations of misconduct. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply. Thereafter, by Ext.P8 order passed on 30.7.2008, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P5 was closed with a severe warning to the petitioner not to W.P.(C) No.23579 of 2008 3 repeat such behaviour/misconduct in future. The petitioner filed Ext.P9 appeal challenging Ext.P8. Even before the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was finalised, the fourth respondent sent Ext.P10 letter dated 21.7.2008 to the third respondent stating that the disciplinary enquiry is in progress, that it will be finalised shortly and that he also proposes to transfer the petitioner from Chittur. Thereafter, by Ext.P11 order passed on 25.7.2008, the petitioner was transferred from Chittur to Electrical Division, Alathur. It was after Ext.P11 order was passed, that by Ext.P8 proceedings, the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner was finalised. Ext.P11 is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Ext.P11 order is not one issued in public interest or in the exigencies of service. He further contends that Ext.P11 order of transfer is the out come of the pressure and influence exerted by the association, which submitted Ext.P2 letter and that as the petitioner has already been punished by W.P.(C) No.23579 of 2008 4 Ext.P8 order, yet another punishment by way of transfer cannot be imposed on him. 5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that during the course of enquiry held pursuant to Ext.P5 memo of charges, the petitioner apologised for the misconduct which he committed on 19.5.2008 and assured that he would not resort to such behaviour in future. It is also stated that it was taking note of the apology tendered by the petitioner and as it was the first disciplinary action against him, that a lenient view was taken to close the disciplinary proceedings by administering a warning to the petitioner. It is also stated that the transfer of the petitioner to Alathur was intended to ensure discipline in the office and in the exigencies of service. The third respondent also contends that transfer to Alathur will not also cause any inconvenience to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. It is not now in dispute that there was an altercation between the petitioner and W.P.(C) No.23579 of 2008 5 Sri.Sivanandan, Office Attendant working in the office of the fourth respondent. Ext.P4 report filed by the Divisional Accountant also indicates that there was heated exchange of words between the petitioner and Sri.Sivanandan. In any case, the fact that there was an exchange of words between the petitioner and Sri. Sivanandan is not in dispute. Ext.P8 discloses that in respect of the said incident, the petitioner was also administered a strict warning. Ext.P8 order was passed on 30.7.2008. Even before the said order was passed, by Ext.P11 order dated 25.7.2008, the petitioner was transferred to Alathur. In Ramachandran Nair v. Director of Training (ILR 1992 (3) Kerala 149), a learned Single Judge of this Court [Justice K.Sreedharan, as his Lordship then was] has held that transfer intended to ensure efficiency in administration and maintenance of discipline cannot be interfered with. 7. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the transfer of the petitioner from Chittur to Alathur as part of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, in the facts of this case, can be said to be arbitrary. It is W.P.(C) No.23579 of 2008 6 not in dispute that the petitioner has been punished. The punishment imposed is however a minor one, viz., the administration of a warning. The petitioner does not seriously dispute the fact that there was an altercation between him and Sri.Sivanandan. The petitioner is employed in the Electrical Section at Chittur and Sri.Sivanandan in the Electrical Division at Chittur. They belong to two rival service organisations. There was a heated exchange of words between them with regard to private matters on 19.5.2008, when the petitioner went over to the office of the fourth respondent where Sri.Sivanandan is working. As the persons involved in the altercation are working in the same station, the Executive Engineer who is having control over the petitioner transferred the petitioner, with a view to avoid such occurrences in future. It could thus be seen that the petitioner was transferred out to maintain discipline in the establishment of the Board. Further as Alathur is not far away from Chittur, the transfer of the petitioner to Alathur cannot be said to be unjust. Further, the punishment imposed as per Ext.P8 is only a minor one. In fact, the petitioner has been warned not to repeat such mistakes in future. Ext.P4 also W.P.(C) No.23579 of 2008 7 discloses that the altercation arose not on account of official matters, but due to private matters. Therefore, there is every likelyhood of such occurrences arising in future. In these circumstances, I find merit in the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner was transferred to Alathur in the exigencies of service and to ensure discipline in the establishment. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.