IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29766 of 2009(M)
1. S.MOHANAN, JUNIOR FOREMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR OF PRINTING,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT (IN CHARGE),
3. SMT.S.SALINI, BINDER GRADE II,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
For Respondent :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.29766 of 2009 (M)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8 order dated
20/10/2009, by which the petitioner has been transferred from the
Government Press Thiruvananthapuram to the Government Press,
Ernakulam.
2. The petitioner is working as a Junior Foreman in the
Lottery Section of the Government Press, Mannamthala,
Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext.P8, on the allegation that there are
records that he has misbehaved with the 3rd respondent, pending
disciplinary action he has been transferred to Ernakulam
Government Press on other duty. According to the petitioner, the
transfer has been ordered at the instance of the 3rd respondent,
whose husband is the State Treasurer of the CITU.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavits. Although,
several allegations have been made in the counter affidavit, it is now
disclosed that the transfer order was necessitated on account of
WP(C) No.29766/2009
-2-
Ext.R3(a) dated 19/03/2009, the complaint filed by the 3rd
respondent against the petitioner, and the findings in Ext.R1(a), the
report submitted by the Women’s Grievance Cell. It is stated that
based on these two documents, disciplinary action is contemplated
and that if the petitioner retained at Thiruvananthapuram, that will
effect the disciplinary proceedings.
4. The question is whether based on these two documents,
an order requiring the transfer of the petitioner is justified. Ext.R3
(a) is the complaint made by the 3rd respondent against the
petitioner on 19/03/2009. A reading of this complaint shows that
she was complaining that the petitioner misbehaved with her during
December, 2008. There is no explanation for this belated
complaint. It is seen that on receipt of this complaint, the Women’s
Grievance Cell issued Ext.P6 notice to the petitioner, conducted
enquiry and submitted Ext.R1(a) report. None of the conclusions
arrived in Ext.R3(a) show that any findings have been arrived at
against the petitioner, except that the working of the petitioner and
his wife in the same section has caused heartburn to several of their
colleagues. Therefore, there is no finding against the petitioner
WP(C) No.29766/2009
-3-
even in Ext.R1(a) report. Therefore, Ext.R3(a), which led to Ext.R1
(a), and the conclusions in Ext.R1(a) cannot be the basis of any
order requiring the shifting of the petitioner from
Thiruvananthapuram as ordered in Ext.P8. For that reason, I am
inclined to think that Ext.P8 is illegal and is liable to be set aside,
and I do so.
However, it is clarified that if on any material, the authorities
are convinced that any disciplinary action is warranted against the
petitioner, this judgment will not stand in the way of the authorities
in initiating any such action.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg