IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7230 of 2010(C)
1. DR.SUNI JOSEPH,MEDICAL OFFICER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (CALICUT)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :17/03/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 7230 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as Medical Officer in-charge at
Community Health Centre, Panathady in Kasaragode District. She
was placed under transfer as per Ext.P10 dated 12.11.2009. Ext.P10
transfer order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C).
No.33774 of 2009 and it was disposed by this Court as per Ext.P12
judgment dated 30.11.2009 with a direction to the first respondent to
consider Ext.P15 representation therein, made with the request to
retain her in Panathady Community Health Centre itself. It was also
directed therein to retain the petitioner till an order is passed thereon.
In terms of the directions in Ext.P12 judgment, the first respondent
considered Ext.P15 representation submitted by the petitioner and
passed Ext.P13 order dated 28.1.2010. This Writ Petition is filed
challenging Exts.P10 and P13 orders.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed the normal
period of stay of 3 years in the said station on 6.6.2009. Paragraph 4
W.P.(C) NO.7230/2010 2
of Ext.P13 would reveal the circumstances that led to the transfer of the
petitioner. It is evident from Ext.P13 that it was with a viewto maintain
a peaceful and healthy atmosphere in the said Community Health
Centre that the petitioner was to be transferred out. In that context, the
recommendations made by the local self government institutions like
the Kallar Grama Panchayat and the Kanhangad Block Panchayat had
been referred to therein. The District Medical Officer Kasaragode has
also recommended that the continuation of the petitioner at the said
Community Centre is not conducive to the peaceful functioning of the
said health centre. It is taking into account all these aspects that in
order to maintain peaceful and healthy atmosphere for a proper
functioning of the said health centre, a decision was taken to transfer
the petitioner. The fact that such an order was passed pending enquiry
and disciplinary action would not, in the said circumstances, make it an
order passed with mala fides or an order of punitive in nature. In view
of the facts obtained in this case as above, I am not inclined to interfere
with Exts.P10 and P13 orders. However, it is made clear that in view
of the settled position that no order casting a stigma on an employee
can be made without affording him/her an opportunity of being heard,
Exts.P10 and P13 shall not be construed as a punishment at all and they
shall not stand in the way of further prospects of the petitioner in her
W.P.(C) NO.7230/2010 3
service. It is further made clear that this observation would not stand in
the way of continuance of the enquiry and disciplinary action
contemplated, in accordance with law.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.7230/2010 4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C). NO. 7230/2010
JUDGMENT
17th March, 2010