IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7019 of 2009(V)
1. V.K.SASIDHARAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE WAREHOUSE MANAGER,
3. THE SHOP IN CHARGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELDHO PAUL
For Respondent :SRI.ELVIN PETER.P.J, SC,BEVERAGES CORPN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :17/03/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 7019 of 2009
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an Abkari worker presently working as a
Salesman. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of
trnansfer, Ext.P3.
2. The petitioner has been working as a Salesman in the
FLI shop at Kuruppumpady under the Lean shop of Aluva, since
2007 onwards. In January, 2009, he requested for a transfer to
his own station at Kothamangalam in view of the illness of his
aged mother. By Ext.P1 order dated 20.01.2009, he was
transferred to the FLI shop Kothamangalam and was continuing
as such. By Ext.P3, again he was transferred to the Warehouse,
Aluva. According to the petitioner, the frequent transfers
effected as above is really an abuse of the power. There is no
administrative reason as such, also.
3. As directed by this Court, on behalf of the respondents
a statement has been filed along with Exts.R1(a) to (d)
documents. The statement reveals that while he was working in
the FLI shop, Kuruppumpady a complaint has been received
from the Shop-in-Charge to the Warehouse, Manager, Aluva.
wpc: 7019 of 2009
2
Mainly the allegation was his misbehaviour during the working
hours. It is explained in Ext.R1(b) memo. Another complaint
was that the petitioner used to consume liquor during the
working hours. Subsequently, a warning Ext. R1(c) was
ordered against him.
4. It is explained after his present transfer, by Ext.R1(d)
that other co-workers at Kothamangalam submitted a
complaint to the Shop-in-Charge alleging misbehaviour on the
part of the petitioner apart from taking alcoholic drinks. It is
therefore pointed out that he has been transferred to the
Warehouse, where he will be under the supervision of the
Manager which will avoid further troubles to the co-workers.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the allegations about the petitioner are not
correct and none of the customers have raised any complaint
against him. Be that as it may, now that the transfer is ordered
due to the alleged complaints against him it cannot be said that
there is abuse of the power. The transfer order is not issued
with any malafide intention.
wpc: 7019 of 2009
3
6. This Court will not be justified in adjudicating the
factual disputes arising between the parties in this
proceedings. It is up to the petitioner to invoke the attention of
the first respondent if he has got a complaint that the alleged
complaints raised against him are without any basis.
Therefore, if the petitioner moves the Managing Director in the
matter by way of a representation, the same will be considered
and appropriate orders will be passed without delay.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
prayed that the petitioner will be allowed to continue in
Kothamangalam till the matter is decided by the Managing
Director. The petitioner will join in the Warehouse, Aluva and
then avail appropriate remedies.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE
bps