IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5193 of 2008(R)
1. LATHA P.P.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION),
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (VIGILANCE),
For Petitioner :SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :22/02/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 22nd February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a First Grade Overseer working in the Public
Works Department. According to her, she was in charge of the
works in the Kodungallur town and this had facilitated her taking
effective steps to remove illegal encroachments on the national
highway. According to her, due to political pressure of several
persons, a complaint came to be filed by one Noushad,
S/o.Kunju Mohammed, before the Chief Secretary raising
certain allegations against the petitioner and other officers.
Petitioner submits that the Superintending Engineer (National
highway) Central Circle, Kochi – the 3rd respondent was
appointed as the enquiry officer and he submitted Exhibit P1 on
28.7.2006, inter alia, concluding that the allegations raised are
baseless.
2. It seems that the Chief Engineer- the 2nd respondent
appointed the 4th respondent to conduct another enquiry. The 4th
respondent submitted Exhibit P2 enquiry report taking a view
W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008
2
different from that of the Superintending Engineering.
According to the petitioner, Exhibits P1 and P2 are by officers
of co-ordinate authority in the PWD.
3. Petitioner has submitted Exhibit P3 detailed
representation before the Chief Engineer. This was directed
to be considered by the Chief Engineer, as per Exhibit P4
judgment. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Chief
Engineer had conducted the personal hearing but orders
came to be passed by the Chief Engineer.
4. Ultimately, Exhibit P7 order came to be passed by
the Chief Engineer directing the transfer of the petitioner
from her present station at North Paravur. By Exhibit P8,
petitioner is transferred to the Buildings Sub Division,
Chittur, Puthunagaram in Palakkad District. Exhibits P7 and
P8 are under challenge in this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Julian
Xavier raises two contentions. He firstly submits that Exhibit
P1 report seems to have been completely ignored by the Chief
Engineer. In fact, reading of Exhibit P7 shows, according to
him that the Chief Engineer has not applied his mind to
W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008
3
Exhibit P1. He then submits that though the personal
hearing, as such was not specifically directed by this Court in
Exhibit P1 judgment, nevertheless, hearing was conducted.
Then the person who conducted the hearing should have
passed an order. In other words, the Chief Engineer alone
could pass an order complying with Exhibit P4 judgment. The
Chief Engineer should have heard her, it is submitted.
6. I heard the learned Government Pleader Mr.Bejoy
Chandran also. Learned Government Pleader submits that it
is true that the Deputy Chief Engineer heard the petitioner
and submitted a report before the Chief Engineer, but orders
were passed by the Chief Engineer.
7. Transfer on pure administrative exigencies will not
invite interference by this Court. Transfer in the present
case evidenced by Exhibits P7 and P8 is apparently on the
acceptance of recommendations contained in Exhibit P2.
There are two contra versions in the form of Exhibits P1 and
P2. I agree with the submission made by the learned
Government Pleader that both are fact finding enquiries and
it is open to the Department to consider both the reports and
W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008
4
take a suitable decision. But I am constrained to take note of
the fact that apparently the Chief Engineer has proceeded on
the premise that there is only one report, namely Exhibit P2.
In my view, the issue is to be appropriately considered by the
Government. It is obviously open to the Government to
consider Exhibits P1 and P2 and any other materials which
are considered as relevant .
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting
the petitioner to file a representation before the 1st
respondent in the form of objection to Exhibit P2 as also
Exhibit P7. If it is done, within four weeks from today, it shall
be considered on merits and appropriate decision shall be
taken by the 1st respondent within two months thereafter.
Petitioner shall be heard in person by the appropriate
authority of the Government before a decision is taken in this
regard. Taking note of the submission on either side that the
petitioner is yet to be relieved from her present station at
North Paravur, I further direct that she shall be permitted to
continue in the present station till the Government takes a
decision as aforementioned. I make it clear that I have not
W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008
5
expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the
petitioner and it is obviously up to the Government to take an
appropriate decision, in accordance with law.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.5193 of 2008
6
K.THANKAPPAN,J
CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999
ORDER
25th May, 2007