IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36362 of 2010(U)
1. ABDUL NASSAR,S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU,AGED 51
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD
... 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
Regulations.
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.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
