K.C.Mathew vs Union Of India on 31 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22998 of 2008(S)


1. K.C.MATHEW, AGED 50,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,

3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL

4. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER,

5. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :31/07/2008

 O R D E R
           K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ

            ==============================

                     W.P.(C)NO. 22998 OF 2008

             ============================

             DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2008

                              JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair,J.

The applicant in O.A.No.385/2008 is the writ petitioner. Ext.P2

O.A.was filed challenging Annexure-A1 order dated 20-6-2008 by

which the petitioner has been transferred from Trichur to Alappuzha

at the instance of the Vigilance Wing of the Railways. He filed

Annexure-A4 representation dated 30-6-2008 and thereafter

approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the

transfer. The C.A.T. was not impressed by the contentions of the

petitioner. The grounds taken were held to be not sufficient to

interfere with the transfer order by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

In the result, the O.A. was dismissed by Ext.P1. This writ petition is

filed challenging Ext.P1.

2. The learned counsel Sri. T.C.Govindaswamy appearing for the

petitioner submitted that Annexure-A1 has been issued in violation of

the Railway Board’s orders, Annexures A7 and A8. If that be so, the

petitioner has to represent pointing out the above aspect before the

WPC.22998/2008 -2-

competent authority of the Railways. We see no such representation

has been made. It is settled position in law that this Court cannot

interfere with a transfer order, unless it is shown to be illegal in the

sense it violates some statutory provision or is vitiated by mala fides.

Guidelines are meant to guide and not to govern. So the violation of

guidelines is not treated as an illegality for the purpose of interference

with the transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to

the right of the petitioner to represent before the competent authority

of the Railways, his grievance regarding the issuance of Annexure-A1

transfer order in violation of Annexures A7 and A8.

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE

M.C. HARI RANI
JUDGE

ks.