IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32178 of 2006(E)
1. K.GITA, W/O.K.M.REGUNATHA KURUP,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. V.ARCHIDEL,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.GIRIJA
For Respondent :ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :19/12/2006
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J.
-----------------------------
WP(C)No. 32178 OF 2006
-----------------------------
Dated this the 19th December, 2006.
JUDGMENT
Challenge is to Ext.P3 order transferring the
petitioner from the post of District Supply Officer,
Thrissur to the post of District Supply Officer, Wayanad.
The substitute posted in her place is the fourth
respondent. It is contended that the transfer is not in
public interest. Having regard to the ailments suffered by
the petitioner, the respondents ought not to have
transferred her to Wayanad. There remains only very few
months for her to retire from service. The petitioner has
worked in Thrissur only for a very short period. Normally
she should have been permitted to continue as District
Supply Officer for some more time. The abrupt order of
transfer will visit her with evil consequences. For the
above reasons advanced by the petitioner, Ext.P3 is
impugned as arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide.
2. Considering the grounds urged by the petitioner
against Ext.P3, the first respondent was directed to file
counter affidavit.
3. The averments made in the counter affidavit would
show that the first respondent had received complaints
against the petitioner from the members of the public and
WPC 32178/2006 2
it was felt that it may not be proper for the first
respondent to permit the petitioner to hold the post of
District Supply Officer, Thrissur and accordingly she was
transferred as per Ext.P3.
4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit.
Considering the facts stated by the petitioner in the writ
petition and the averments made by the first respondent in
the counter affidavit I felt that the relevant files shall
be called for and perused to ascertain the truth of the
rival contentions raised by the petitioner on the one hand
and the first respondent on the other.
5. On a perusal of the relevant files it is seen that
one C.T.Anto had filed a written complaint addressed to the
Hon’ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies and the same
was received in the office of the Minister on 20.10.2003.
That complaint was transmitted to the concerned Secretary
which was further transmitted to the Director of Civil
Supplies for urgent report. Similarly, the President of
Methala Panchayat had sent a written complaint before the
Hon’ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies on 15.11.2006.
This complaint also was forwarded to the Director of Civil
Supplies from the Government Secretariat for immediate
remarks. Complaint dated 15.11.2006 is seen signed by the
President, Vice President and a member of the Panchayat
WPC 32178/2006 3
apart from two members of the public. A third complaint is
seen received in the Government Secretariat which is
addressed to the Vigilance Director requesting to take
approprite action against one Mohammed who is the driver of
the District Supply Office, Thrissur, one Shri. Mohan who
was the former District Supply Officer and Smt. Gita who is
the present District Supply Officer, the petitioner herein.
On 28.11.2006 the Director of Civil Supplies sent a report
to the Private Secretary to the Minister for Food and Civil
Supplies pointing out that certain lapses were found
committed during the tenure of office by the petitioner and
stringent action should be taken against the District
Supply Officer. Based on the above report the impugned
order was passed.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not informed of the allegations against her
at any point of time, and therefore, it is difficult to
believe that the impugned order of transfer is based on
genuine complaints made by aggrieved persons.
7. On going through the files produced, I am unable to
accept the above contention. The complaints were received
in the month of November, and as already found, due enquiry
was conducted through the Director of Civil Supplies and
only after getting the report from the Director of Civil
WPC 32178/2006 4
Supplies, orders were passed directing to transfer the
petitioner from the present station. It cannot therefore
be contended that the statements made in the counter
affidavit that complaints containing allegations against
the petitioner were received have no factual basis or that
the order of transfer does not involve any public interest.
The relevant files very clearly show that public interest
has been given due importance and the Government have done
what is required to be done according to law. I find no
error or infirmity in the impugned order. Writ petition
fails. Dismissed.
K.K.DENESAN
Judge
jj