Vinoj V. Nair vs The Chairman & Managing Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 10936 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
      THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 35152 OF 2023

PETITIONERS :-

           VINOJ V. NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS
           S/O VIJAYAN NAIR, KUNNATHU VILAKAM, ELAMBA P.O.,
           ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695103

           BY ADV I.DINESH MENON

RESPONDENTS :-

     1     THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR
           KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
           TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O.
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034

     2     THE DISTRICT OFFICER, SOUTH
           KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
           O/O THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034

           BY DEEPU THANKAN, SC FOR KSRTC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION        ON
26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 35152 OF 2023
                                                   2




                                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is working as a conductor in the

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). He is presently working in

the Thiruvananthapuram city unit. His grievance is that without affording

any reason, he has been transferred to Parashala, which is about 70 kms

from the Thiruvananthapuram city unit. He asserts that the petitioner was

transferred to the present unit only about two years back, and if that be the

case, there was no justification on the part of the respondents in

transferring the petitioner to Parasala. It is on these assertions that this writ

petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P2 proceedings and for further

direction to the respondents for refreshment of incidental reliefs.

2. Sri. I. Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, submits that though administrative reasons are stated to be the

reason for the transfer, the said order gives an indication of a report

submitted by the vigilance. It is submitted that the only apparent reason for

the untimely transfer is that the petitioner is part of a different trade union.

The learned counsel would refer to the law laid down in Union of India

and Others v. S.L Abbas1, and it was argued that this Court will be

justified in interfering with the order when the order of transfer is vitiated

[1993 (4) SCC 357] WP(C) NO. 35152 OF 2023

by mala fides or is made in violation with statutory provisions.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted

that it is on administrative exigencies that the petitioner herein has been

transferred. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Division

Bench of this Court in Babu V State of Kerala2, and it is argued that the

orders of transfer made in the exercise of administrative discretion may not

be interfered with under Art.226 of the Constitution. Reliance is also placed

on Nixy James v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation3, and it is

submitted that before effecting the transfer, there need not be any enquiry

conducted to ascertain whether there was misbehavior or conduct

unbecoming of an employee.

4. I have considered the submissions.

5. In Nixy (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court had

occasion to encapsulate the law relating to the transfer of employee by

referring to the precedents in a lucid manner. It would be appropriate to

extract paragraph Nos. 6 to 9, which I feel applies to the facts of the

instant case.

6. Law is too well settled that, transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no legal right in this behalf. It is also well settled that, unless the orders of transfer is vitiated by statutory violations or mala

1988 (2) KLT 258

[2023 (3) KLT 893] WP(C) NO. 35152 OF 2023

fides, Courts should be loathe in interfering with the same. Courts will be extremely circumspect, will act with restraint and may not ponder into hairsplitting arguments, to scan the decisions in orders of transfer. The Corporation cannot effectually work when the employees act intolerably or spitefully amongst themselves or is engaged in activities which go against the best interests of the Corporation. Transfer can be effected on administrative grounds as long as it is intended to aid proper administration and to sub-serve internal discipline.

7. When an employee is transferred to maintain the smooth running of an organization, it is not to be understood as a punishment. The element of punishment is absent therein. The idea is to maintain the internal harmony of the organisation and to safeguard its smooth functioning. In every case of erratic or in appropriate behaviour by a subordinate, the employer is not bound to initiate departmental action and to impose punishment. For effecting a transfer, there need not be any enquiry conducted to first ascertain whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee. To hold otherwise would frustrate the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration, to enforce a decorum and ensure probity.

8. The question whether an employee is to be transferred to a different division etc., are matters for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities. The power to transfer an employee in a transferable service is within the prerogative of the employer. It is he who knows best, where an employee should be deployed for an effective discharge of his/her duties for the establishment. The inconvenience caused to the employee and his family consequent on the transfer are not sufficient to interfere with the orders of transfer. A transfer can always be done in public interest. (Babu v. State of Kerala (1988 (2) KLT 258), Vasu v. High Court of Kerala (1989 (1) KLT 16), Dinamony v. Dt. Superintendent of Police, Kollam (1994 (1) KLT 326), P.Pushpakaran v. Chairman, Coir Board (Ker.) (1978 KLT 539= 1979 (1) SLR 309), Rajan v. Director General of Police (1999 (2) KLT 673), Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar ((1990 (2) KLT OnLine 1156 (SC) = 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659), WP(C) NO. 35152 OF 2023

Union of India v. S.L.Abbas (1993 (1) KLT OnLine 1086 (SC) = ((1993) 4 SCC 357), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan (2001 (3) KLT OnLine 1058 = (2001) 8 SCC 574), Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Janardhan Debanath & Anr. (2004 (1) KLT OnLine 1353 (SC) = (2004) 4 SCC 245), Divyamol R.S. v. Director General Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi & Ors. (2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1093 = 2022 (5) KHC 732).

9. In addition to the law on transfers as noticed supra, it is appropriate to refer to clause 11 of the Transfer Guidelines in Appendix-IV of the Long-Term Settlement Agreement, 2012 of the Corporation. A copy of the same has been produced along with the counter affidavit as Annexure-R1(a). Clause 11 thereof deals with "Transfer on Administrative ground due to disciplinary issues". Therefore, the Corporation is enabled even under the Transfer Guidelines to effect transfers of its employees on administrative grounds, to maintain a harmonious and working atmosphere at its offices.

6. As held in Nixy (supra), transfer is an incidence of service,

and the employee has no legal right to interdict the same unless there

are materials to suggest that the order of transfer is vitiated by

statutory violations or mala fides. Transfer can be effected on

administrative grounds as long as it is intended to aid proper

administration and to sub-serve internal discipline. The question of

whether an employee is to be transferred to a different division, etc.,

are matter for the employer to consider depending upon the

administrative necessities. The power to transfer an employee in a

transferable service is within the prerogative of the employer. The

inconvenience caused to the employee and his family consequent to the WP(C) NO. 35152 OF 2023

transfer is not sufficient to interfere with the orders of transfer. A

transfer can always be done in the public interest. Furthermore, as per

the relevant clause of the Transfer Guidelines in Appendix-IV of the

Long-Term Settlement Agreement, 2012, the Corporation is entitled to

effect transfers of its employees on administrative grounds to maintain a

harmonious working atmosphere at its offices.

In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere. While

dismissing this petition, it is made clear that it would be open to the

petitioner to file a representation narrating his grievance as regards the

transfer to the Executive Director after joining the transferred unit. If

any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered, and an

appropriate decision shall be taken expeditiously.

This writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE SMA WP(C) NO. 35152 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35152/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-

Exhibit P1          TRUE   COPY  OF   THE   PROCEEDINGS   NO.   A&V
                    A5/7376/2023 DATED 09.10.2023

Exhibit P2          TRUE   COPY   OF    THE   PROCEEDINGS   NUMBER

E11/6721/2023/CTY/TVM:SOUTH DATED 21.10.2023

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.09.2023