IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 643 of 2009(B)
1. KUMARI ASWATHY, SALESMAN, COIRFED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SHOWROOM MANAGER
3. SUNIL, SYSTEM ANALYST NOW IN CHARGE OF
4. RAHIM, SHOWROOM MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :23/01/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.643 OF 2009
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, who has various personal reasons in her
request to continue in Charummood in Alappuzha district,
stands accused in Exts.P2 and P4 memo of charges, on
different grounds. But the allegations therein do not appear to
be those which could ultimately invite a major penalty, going
by any yardstick of service law. I say this without prejudice to
disciplinary proceedings; only for appreciating the challenge
made by her to the impugned transfer order, by which, she has
been shifted from Charumoodu to Palghat. Her case is that as
evidenced by Ext.P1, her husband requires her presence and
attention and that she is being victimised by the impugned
transfer.
2. As of now, I am not prepared to conclude that the transfer
deserves to be set aside by any authority in exercise of any
statutory or constitutional power. The respondent is an apex
co-operative society. It is amenable to the jurisdiction under
WPC.643/09
Page numbers
Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It
may not fall within the trappings of Article 12 of the
Constitution.
3. Though Ext.P5 is apparently a transfer on account of the
disciplinary proceedings and is not one which reflects to be
one in the exigencies of service, it would be open for the
Managing Director to consider the request of the petitioner for
re-consideration of the order of transfer. But the petitioner is
yet to make such a request to the Manging Director. Under
such circumstances, it is directed that if the petitioner makes
a representation for re-consideration of Ext.P5 transfer order,
that would be considered by the first respondent Managing
Director provided the petitioner has already joined Palghat. In
such event, the Managing Director would consider the case of
the petitioner sympathetically having regard to Ext.P1. The
writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.