IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12794 of 2009(T)
1. A.R.MOHAMMED RAFI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE),
3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :26/05/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.12794 of 2009-T
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1.Petitioner is an employee of the KSRTC. He was
placed under suspension. Later, memo of charges
was issued to him. The proceedings commenced,
allegedly, on the basis of an anonymous
complaint. Since further proceedings are pending
before the employer, I do not propose to record
the details of the allegations against the
petitioner. Suffice to say that the contention of
the petitioner is that the allegations in the
anonymous complaint are not sustained in the
preliminary enquiry wherein a different set of
allegations has cropped up leading to the
issuance of the memo of charges. He further
states that though the last sentence of the memo
of charges essentially concludes on the guilt and
there would be no purpose in further conducting
WP(C)12794/09 -: 2 :-
an enquiry, the preliminary enquiry is allegedly
conducted by a person, in rank, below the
petitioner. It is also contended that the entire
exercise is mere victimization and is a biased
procedure on account of the petitioner being a
member of the INTUC. He further states that he
and his wife are an inter-caste couple and are
entitled to protection from being transferred
out. The petitioner has been re-admitted to duty.
Though he was at Palakkad at the time of
suspension, on re-admission, he has been
transferred to Thalassery. Petitioner challenges
such transfer also.
2.In so far as service in KSRTC is concerned, apart
from the disciplinary proceedings which are
provided in the normal course, there is an
Appellate Tribunal presided by a District Judge
to hear appeals from final orders in disciplinary
matters. The initiation of disciplinary
proceedings cannot, now, be treated as wholly
groundless or in total lack of jurisdiction
WP(C)12794/09 -: 3 :-
requiring the writ court to interfere on any
ground of injustice. The petitioner has adequate
remedy even after the conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings. All such issues are
left open.
3.All that may gain some attention is the transfer
of the petitioner from Palakkad to Thalassery.
Though the petitioner may, as the servant of
KSRTC, have free transport in the buses, to the
extent permitted, the impugned order of transfer
reflects that it is issued as a consequence of
the re-admission of the petitioner to duty,
re-calling the order of suspension. If that were
so, the order of transfer should have been guided
only by the principle that the petitioner should
not be permitted to meddle with the evidence and
could be kept away from the scene of the situs of
the enquiry so that he may not influence probable
witnesses. In that view of the matter, I deem it
necessary that the competent authority takes a
second look on the question whether he should be
WP(C)12794/09 -: 4 :-
transferred out to Thalassery or could be posted
in a station nearer to Palakkad where his wife
works.
For the aforesaid reasons, while refusing to
interfere with the disciplinary proceedings and
preserving all the contentions of the petitioner
in that regard, to be agitated before the
appropriate authority at the appropriate time,
this writ petition is ordered directing that if
the petitioner moves the Managing Director of
KSRTC by appropriate representation complaining
about his transfer to Thalassery, that will be
considered sympathetically and in accordance with
law, having regard to the totality of the facts
and circumstances. Let this be done within a
period of one month from the receipt of such
representation. All other issues are left open.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/010609