High Court Kerala High Court

P.V.Suresh Babu vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
P.V.Suresh Babu vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 642 of 2009()


1. P.V.SURESH BABU, ASST. SECURITY OFFICER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE RUBBER BOARD, SUB JAIL ROAD,

3. THE CHAIRMAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :25/03/2009

 O R D E R
  K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
                     -------------------------------
                      W.A. No.642 OF 2009
                     -------------------------------
            Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The writ petitioner is the appellant. He approached this

Court challenging Ext.P4 order, as per which, he has been

transferred from Kottayam to Guwahati. He is an Assistant

Security Officer working under the respondents. According to

him, the transfer is vitiated by malafidies. Since he is a member

of a Scheduled Caste, he is being harassed and discriminated.

The respondents on the other hand submitted that one post of

Assistant Security Officer has been shifted from Kerala to

Guwahati. The petitioner being the senior-most, among the

Security Officers serving in Kerala, has been transferred to

Guwahati. The said transfer is made in exigencies of service.

They denied the allegations of malafidies imputed against them

by the appellant. A transfer can be impugned under Article 226

of the Constitution of India only on two grounds. They are

1) the transfer is contrary to any statutory provision.

2) It is vitiated by malafidies.

W.A.No.642/2009 2

2. The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition,

dismissed it holding that the transfer has been ordered in

exigencies of service. Hence, this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

contended before us that the appellant has been transferred to

harass him. His transfer is vitiated by malafidies. The said

contention of the appellant is disputed by the respondents.

Allegations of malafidies are easily made. But, it is difficult to

substantiate them. We do not find any material to arrive at a

conclusion that the transfer is vitiated by malafidies. Therefore,

the appeal fails and it is dismissed.

(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)
ps