P.A.Paily vs The Managing Director on 10 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15785 of 2009(P)


1. P.A.PAILY, AGED 55 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :10/06/2009

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                   W.P(C).No.15785 OF 2009
                   -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009


                               JUDGMENT

While working at Kumily, the petitioner was issued a show

cause notice on account of certain attributes made against him

touching his official duties. The petitioner has filed Ext.P6

appeal against the disciplinary proceedings. That is pending

before the Managing Director. On the very same set of

allegations, the petitioner was transferred from Kumily to

Neyyatinkara. Transfer is not one of the punishments, either

minor or major, prescribed in the service rules. Not only that,

the petitioner had hardly two weeks to retire when he was

transferred off to Neyyatinkara from Kumily. The transfer order

Ext.P2 itself says that it is a measure of discipline. Normally,

transfer cannot be imposed as a punishment, though, in the

wisdom of the administration, it may be available to keep a

person away from the situs of an enquiry so that he may not

influence the witnesses or interfere with the enquiry

proceedings or tamper with evidence. Beyond that, there is

WPC.15785/09

Page numbers

really no scope to transfer off a person, that too, from Kumily to

a distant place like Neyyatinkara, in the fag end of his career.

There are other known modes to keep a person out of certain

pending enquiry. Nothing of that sort having been done, there

is really no reason to sustain a transfer from Kumily to

Neyyattinkara. However, since the petitioner’s appeal is

pending before the Managing Director of KSRTC as against

Ext.P5 disciplinary proceedings, if the petitioner files a further

representation on the question of his transfer, that would also be

sympathetically considered by the Managing Director in the light

of what is stated above, so that the petitioner could submit his

papers for retiral benefits from Kumily rather than compel him

to go to Neyyattinkara for such purpose. This writ petition is

ordered accordingly. There is no reason to assume that the

Managing Director will not expeditiously consider the aforesaid

matter. This Court is sure that, that will be done in this case

also. Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.11/6.