IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32321 of 2006(W)
1. T.BABURAJ, DEPUTY PRODUCTION MANAGER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES LIMITED,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P&A),
4. K.K.JOSEPH, GENERAL MANAGER,
5. SRI.BALASUBRAMANIAN,
6. K.K.DHAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :19/02/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.32321 of 2006
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has been working as Deputy Production
Manager (Technical) under the respondents. He challenges
Ext.P3 order transferring him from the Udyogamandal Unit of the
first respondent to Bathinda in Punjab passed by the third
respondent. The petitioner is Serial No.3 in that order. The
impugned order shows that besides the petitioner, one Mathew
Varghese has been transferred from Udyogamandal Unit to
Rasayani Unit, Maharashtra, Sri.R.K.Goswami and Sri.
A.K.Srivastava from Rayasani Unit to Udyogamandal Unit.
2. Ext.P3 is challenged mainly on the ground that it is
vitiated by malafides. The circumstances under which the
petitioner feels that his transfer from Udyogamandal Unit to
Bathinda is vitiated by malafides, are the following:
W.P.(C)No. 32321/2006 :2:
3. The petitioner is the Vice President of Hindustan
Insecticides Limited Officers Association. The President of the
Association is a Member of Parliament Dr.Sebastian Paul. As the
Vice President of the Association, the petitioner had to take very
many causes in order to protect the interest of the officers as well
as that of HIL. Recently the Company proposed to erect an
Incinerator. In order to erect the said Incinerator tenders were
invited by the Company and thereafter the contract was awarded
to M/s HAAT, which is a Bangalore based Company. Respondents
4 and 5 played a dubious role in awarding contract to M/s HAAT.
The decision to award contract to M/s HAAT was taken by a
Committee which consisted of respondents 4 and 5 as well as the
petitioner and other few officers. After the award of the contract
to M/s HAAT, during the execution of the contract M/s HAAT
committed various procedural irregularities. The materials used
for erection of Incinerator was of low quality and far below the
standards required to be maintained by the Company as laid
down in the conditions of the contract. The petitioner wanted to
protect the interest of the Company and objected to the
W.P.(C)No. 32321/2006 :3:
execution of the contract by M/s HAAT. When the petitioner
raised his objection in the execution of the erection of Incinerator
by M/s HAAT, respondents 4 and 5 who had given cart-blanche to
M/s HAAT to execute the contract as they like on extraneous
considerations, removed the petitioner from the Committee by
divesting of his duties as the Deputy Protection Manager
(Technical). Thereafter respondents 4 and 5 sanctioned payments
to M/s HAAT in gross violation of the conditions of the contract
for personal gains and on extraneous considerations. The
petitioner, on coming to know of the above illegal activities of
respondents 4 and 5 submitted a representation (Ext.P1) through
the Secretary of the Association to the 4th respondent. The
submission of Ext.P1 was not welcomed by respondents 4 and 5
and they found it inconvenient to perpetuate their illegality.
Regarding the erection of Incinerator in the Company by M/s
HAAT and the payments made there were widespread allegations
which were reported in all the leading Newspapers. The
petitioner as the Vice President of the Association as well as other
Officers of the Association compelled the 4th respondent to
W.P.(C)No. 32321/2006 :4:
convene a meeting to clarify the entire issue. Hence the 4th
respondent left with no other remedy was compelled to convene
a meeting in the 3rd week of July, 2006. In the said meeting
majority of the officers participated and the petitioner as the Vice
President of the Association had to ask several questions which
were inconvenient to the 4th respondent. Consequently, the 2nd
respondent himself had to convene a meeting in the month of
September, 2006. In the said meeting the petitioner as well as
other Officers brought to the notice of the Chairman and
Managing Director, the illegalities committed by respondents 4
and 5 in connection with the erection of the Incinerator by M/s
HAAT. Regarding the entire issue of erecting the Incinerator and
the allegations of corruption which were in air, the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted an investigation. Raids
were conducted in the residence as well as the offices of
respondents 4, 5 and 6 and the CBI being convinced that there
was corruption in the erection of Incinerator by M/s HAAT,
registered a FIR against respondents 4 to 6 as well as the Officers
of M/s HAAT.
W.P.(C)No. 32321/2006 :5:
4. The above allegations made by the petitioner are sought
to be countered by the sworn averments made in the affidavit
filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. The counter affidavit
while denying the allegations in the W.P.(C) inter alia says
“………….. the Bhathinda Unit of the Company was
commissioned in 2003. The Unit employs around 300
personnel and there existed a requirement of a
Chemical Engineer at the level of Deputy Manager.
The Unit operates full-scale formulation facilities
handling various chemicals and qualified Chemical
Engineer at senior level is an absolute necessity for
safe operations of the plants. It was in order to fill up
the said vacancy, the Head Office of the Company was
considering the availability of suitable person with
qualification in Chemical Engineering and adequate
experience. While considering the suitability of the
candidates available, the Head Office also considered
whether such candidates could be spared from their
present assignments. While so, the Head Office
decided that the petitioner was the ideal person to be
transferred and posted without affecting the
production or other work of the Udyogamandal Unit.
It was also decided that suitable alternate
arrangements will be made by assigning the duties of
the post that were discharged by the petitioner to the
existing Officers of the Units.”
5. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel
on either side, I am of the view that it may not be safe to draw
the inference that the petitioner’s transfer is the result of the
W.P.(C)No. 32321/2006 :6:
alleged ill will or displeasure entertained by the respondents, as
apprehended by the petitioner. The fact that certain contingencies
arose in the wake of the implementation and operation of the
first respondent Company in different parts of the country, is
evident from the pleadings of the respondents. Bhathinda Unit of
the company was commissioned in 2003. That Unit employs
around 300 personnel. The Company is in need of a Chemical
Engineer at the level of Deputy Manager. While dealing with the
problem of filling up the vacancy of a Chemical Engineer in that
Unit, the question of transferring a duly qualified Manager came
up for consideration. It was found that the petitioner’s service
would be useful for the effective operation of the Bathinda Unit
and Ext.P3 order was passed.
6. It is pertinent to note that it is not the petitioner alone
who has been transferred from Udyogamandal Unit to a place
outside the State. Sl.No.1 in Ext.P3 has been transferred to the
State of Maharashtra. The allegation that the active role played
by the petitioner in bringing out certain misdeeds on the part of
some of the officers has led to the impugned transfer does not
W.P.(C)No. 32321/2006 :7:
appear to be the basic reason for passing an order in the nature
of Ext.P3. Probably, because of the role played by him, as stated
above, he might have entertained the bonafide feeling that he
has been chosen for a transfer to a far away place. Such feelings
alone cannot form the foundation for demolishing Ext.P3. In the
above view of the matter, the contention that Ext.P3 is vitiated
by malafides is rejected. I do not propose to interfere with
Ext.P3 order. The prayer is declined.
7. The petitioner has been on leave ever since he has been
served with Ext.P3 order. As rightly submitted by the Counsel for
the petitioner, there is good reason for him to remain on leave.
Personal reasons coupled with the interim order passed by this
Court on 5.12.2006 justifies his conduct. Now that I have
declined to interfere with Ext.P3, the petitioner has to go and
take charge of the assignment given to him as per Ext.P3.
Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that immediately
on certain important and urgent works getting executed, it will be
open to the petitioner to apply for leave and also for re-transfer
to Udyogamandal, if he so chooses. I think, the petitioner will be
W.P.(C)No. 32321/2006 :8:
well advised to join duty, discharge the essential works to be
carried out there, and immediately thereafter, to apply for leave.
Simultaneously, he can apply for re-transfer to Udyogamandal. I
make it clear that such application filed by the petitioner shall be
considered with due compassion since he is directed to take
charge of a work far away from his native place, for, it will
always be the desire of any sensible person to come back to his
native place and to serve the employer in a peaceful atmosphere
during the rest of his service period.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed
of.
K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE
css
/
W.P.(C)No. 32321/2006 :9: