Abdul Nassar vs Kerala Headload Workers Welfare … on 6 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Abdul Nassar vs Kerala Headload Workers Welfare … on 6 December, 2010




WP(C).No. 36362 of 2010(U)

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, KHLWWB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :06/12/2010

 O R D E R
                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.


                       W.P.(C).No.36362 of 2010


              Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010

                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order, whereby the petitioner

has been transferred from Kollam to Kasargod. According to the

petitioner, the transfer is vitiated insofar as it is punitive in nature and

the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard

before issuing the said punitive order of transfer.

2. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1

and 2 points out that Ext.P3 order is not punitive. It is only in the

course of disciplinary proceedings. He points out that but for the

transfer, respondents 1 and 2 would have to suspend the petitioner

from service. Instead, only transfer has been ordered and therefore

the same is in the exigencies of administration. It is pointed out that

the petitioner has been served with Ext.P1 memo of charges, to which

the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P2 explanation. The standing

counsel also points out that the defiant attitude of the petitioner is

clear from Ext.P2 explanation.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the

transfer is against Rule 44 of the Kerala Headload Workers’ Staff


4. I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction

w.p.c.36362/10 2

in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly Ext.P1 charge memo has also

been issued to him alleging very serious misconduct on his part. In

Ext.P2 the petitioner has tried to make out that this is an action

against the union and not against the petitioner himself. The

misconduct alleged against him is subversive of discipline and the

attitude of the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P2 explanation, is

defiant in nature. In the above circumstances, I do not find anything

wrong in transferring the petitioner pending disciplinary proceedings.

Rule 44 does not come into the picture insofar as this has only been

issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings and in the exigencies

of service. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and

accordingly, the same is dismissed.


sdk+                                            S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///

                             P.A. to Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information