IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15101 of 2010(K)
1. K.V.DINESAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE
... Respondent
2. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER (P&A)
3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE
4. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER - IN CHARGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/05/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 15101 OF 2010 (K)
=====================
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Senior Assistant Grade I, who was working in
the Kanhangad Taluk Depot of the respondent Corporation. By
Ext.P2 order, he was ordered to be transferred to Palakkad
Region. Based on Ext.P2, Ext.P3, a consequential order was issued
by the Regional Manager.
2. Thereupon the Petitioner approached this Court and
filed WP(C) No.11860/10. That writ petition was disposed of by
Ext.P4 judgment allowing the Petitioner to make a representation
against Exts.P2 and P3 and directing the respondents to consider
the same. Accordingly, Ext.P5 representation was filed and the
request to retain him at Kanhangad was rejected by Ext.P6. It is
this order which is under challenge.
3. The reason stated in Ext.P6 is that the petitioner was
responsible for excess indenting of certain goods in the depot.
Learned counsel challenges Ext.P6 mainly contending that as per
the procedure followed by the Corporation, it is based on the
three months average consumption, that indents are placed and
WPC No. 15101/10
:2 :
that indents are forwarded to the Head Office, which finally
approves the indent. It is stated that the petitioner cannot be
made liable for the alleged irregularity mentioned in Ext.P6.
4. However, on instructions, learned standing counsel for
the respondents submit that as against the requirement of stock
worth Rs.4,14,000, by manipulation in the records, petitioner
indented stocks worth Rs.10,11,000/-. It is stated that when the
irregularity was noticed,, as the petitioner could not be retained at
the region, the petitioner was ordered to be transferred by the
impugned order.
5. If as stated by the respondents, on noticing the
aforesaid irregularity, it was decided to keep the petitioner away
from the region concerned, such a decision of the respondents
cannot be interfered by this Court particularly in the absence of
anything to show that the decision is vitiated for malafides or
arbitrariness.
6. Be that as it may, having regard to the grievance of
the petitioner that the order has been issued despite the
availability of vacancies in and around Kanhangad, it is directed
that it will be open to the petitioner to make a representation to
WPC No. 15101/10
:3 :
the 1st respondent. It is directed that if such a representation is
made, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass orders
thereon within four weeks of its receipt.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp