IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18521 of 2009(I)
1. REHIANATH, AGED 47,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANILAL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :29/09/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
W.P.(C). No. 18521 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29th day of September 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an ICDS Supervisor and a native of Vavvakavu
in Kollam District. She joined service on 31.05.2001 and worked
there in six months and thereafter she was posted at ICDS
Project Chambakulam in Alleppey District, wherein she works
from 2002 to 2007. She was transferred to Karunagappally on
22.05.2007 and was continuing there. She was subject to
general transfer in the year 2009. But by Ext.P2 order
dated26.06.2009, she has been transferred to Kanjirappally ICDS
and this has been challenged in the writ petition.
2. The transfer is admittedly not on mere administration
exigencies. In fact, it seems that certain complaints have been
raised against the petitioner by the Anganvadi workers in
Karunagappally ICDS and a preliminary enquiry was conducted
and it is apparently to facilitate further enquiry, she has been
transferred. These facts are stated in the counter affidavit filed
by the respondents.
W.P.(C). No. 18521 OF 2009
2
3. I take note of the contentions raised by the petitioner
that she is a widow with two children. A transfer from
Karunagappally to Kanjirappally will probably result in the
petitioner shifting her residence. The transfer is for the purpose
of facilitating an enquiry against the petitioner on the basis of
complaints allegedly raised by Anganvadi workers. I further take
note of the fact that though there was a complaint that petitioner
had purchased supplies from outside, further proceedings
pursuant to the same have been dropped noting that such
purchases have been approved by the concerned Panchayat. The
allegation which are now proposed to be enquired into, may not
compel a transfer of the petitioner to a station as distant as
Kanjirappally from Karunagappally.
4. This Court had at the stage of admission stayed the
order of transfer and the order continues as on date. The
respondent may therefore proceed with the disciplinary action
against the petitioner as mentioned in Ext.R2 filed by the first
respondent. But Ext.P2 order of transfer should not be given
effect to for the purpose of facilitating such disciplinary action.
W.P.(C). No. 18521 OF 2009
3
But it is made clear that it will be open to the respondents to
transfer the petitioner to any other nearby station in the same
District, if they think the same is warranted.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
kkms/