Kerala High Court
B. Vijayan Pillai vs The Managing Director on 12 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4442 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
B. VIJAYAN PILLAI
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O BALAN PILLAI, R/O MEENETHEL,
PUTHIYAVILA NORTH, PUTHIYAVILA, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 690531
BY ADVS. NAVANEETH.N.NATH GAUTHAM KRISHNA E.J. MAHESH
CHANDRAN MEGHA BIJU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT,
TRIVANDRUM- 695023., PIN - 695023
2 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (ADMINISTRATION) KSRTC,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, TRIVANDRUM- 695023., PIN -
695023
3 INVESTIGATING OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA- 689645, PIN - 689645
4 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (VIGILANCE) KSRTC, PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN
P.O, OPPOSITE KSRTC DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-
695033, PIN - 695033
5 V.D. MANOJ, AGED 52 YEARS, VELIKKAKATHA HOUSE,
CHANDIROOR, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 688537
BY ADV DEEPU THANKAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SC SRI. DEEPU THANKAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 4442/2024
-2-
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 12th day of April 2024)
The petitioner, while working as a conductor in KSRTC,
was issued with Ext.P2 suspension order, based on Ext.P1
complaint. Thereafter, enquiry proceedings were initiated, and
Ext.P9 enquiry report was submitted on 10.01.2024 by the
Enquiry Officer. Pursuant to which, Ext.P8 order was passed,
reinducting the petitioner back to service, cancelling the
suspension with liberty to proceed with the enquiry
proceedings, and transferring him to Irinjalakkurda Depot.
2. The petitioner challenges Exts.P8 and P9 before this
Court. Meanwhile, the complainant in Ext.P1 had submitted a
letter to the 1st respondent, stating that he did not wish to
proceed with the complaint.
3. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents
1 to 4, wherein the averments raised in the writ petition are
countered, and it is stated that Ext.P8 was issued on
administrative exigencies after cancelling the suspension of the
petitioner and reinducting him back in service. It cannot be
said that based on a punishment, he has been transferred.
4. At the time of admission, an order was passed by
this Court on 06.02.2024, wherein it was ordered that "if the
petitioner was not relieved as per Ext.P8 till today, he can be
allowed to continue in the Haripad Depot for three weeks".
5. In view of the fact that, as per Ext.P8, the
petitioner's suspension was cancelled and he was reinducted
into service, the petitioner could not join the Haripad Depot
and did not join the Irinjalakkurda Depot either. So the
petitioner is actually out of service, from the date of Ext.P8
till today.
6. To the pointed question as to whether Ext.P9 is
accepted or not, the Standing Counsel replied that the
respondent has not taken any decision whether to accept
Ext.P9 or not, and the said proceedings are before the Board.
Unless and until, Ext.P9 report is accepted, the petitioner
cannot have a reason to challenge Ext.P9 at this point of
time. It is seen from Ext.P8 that the transfer is after
reinducting the petitioner into service to Irinjalakkuda on
administrative grounds.
7. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of
India [(2009) 2 SCC 592] and points out that if there is
malice, or malice in law, the transfer, even though it is stated
as on administrative grounds, it will be wholly unjustifiable as
the transfer is in view of the punishment. He also relied on
the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.26925/2021, in
which another employee of the same Corporation who was
transferred based on a complaint, challenged the same before
this Court, and this Court, by judgment dated 16.12.2021
quashed the transfer order. But on appeal in W.A
No.243/2022, a Division Bench of this Court did not interfere
with the transfer order, but on a concession made by the
Corporation that he would be accommodated in a place nearer
to the place from which he was transferred, the Writ Appeal
was closed.
8. On going through Ext.P8, I do not find that it is
based on any malafides to transfer the petitioner to
Irinjalakkuda Depot. The said order was passed, giving him
reinduction back to service with a transfer. So the petitioner
ought to have joined the Depot in which he has been
transferred, and seek a transfer request if he is not satisfied in
continuing in the Irinjalakkuda Depot.
9. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the
period from the date of Ext.P8 till date will be treated as
unauthorised absence by the respondents, since, he could not
join either the Haripad Depot or the Irinjalakkuda Depot.
10. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the
1st respondent to not treat the period as unauthorised absence
and not to initiate any coercive or disciplinary proceedings
against him for that reason, and if the petitioner is having
any eligible leave to his credit, the same shall be granted to
him as eligible leave for the period of absence. As far as
Ext.P9 is concerned, it is premature, and the petitioner is at
liberty to challenge the proceedings or orders issued after the
respondent takes a decision on Ext.P9 enquiry report. The
petitioner is also at liberty to move the 1 st respondent with a
proper representation to get a posting near to the place of his
residence, and if such representation is filed, the respondent
shall consider the same, in accordance with law, taking into
consideration the situation that the petitioner is an unmarried
man, with an aged mother.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
JS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4442/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.09.2023
SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 BEFORE THE
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER BEARING NO. A
& V3-044890/2023 DATED 13.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO.
N & V3/044890/2023 DATED 17.11. 2023 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DATED
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE BUS DRIVER
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT
LETTER DATED 12.12.2023 INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION LETTER DATED
09.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.
A&VA5/000362/2024, DATED 18.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO. A4/PH-
1/298/23/DO PTA DATED 10.1.2024 ISSUED BY THE
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO. G.O.(P) NO. 12/04/P &
ARD DATED 10.09.2004
Exhibit P11 EXHIBIT P11 IS STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHER
WITNESSES DATED 17.11.2023
Exhibit P12 AND EXHIBIT P12 IS THE INVESTIGATING REPORT BEARING
NO. A4/PH-1/298/23/DO PTA DATED 10.01.2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1- A true copy of the translation of the relevant pages of the
(A) guidelines for transfer
EXHIBIT R1-(b) A true copy of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WPC NO.
21307/2023 dated 11/07/2023
EXHIBIT R1-(c) A true copy of the relieving order dated 19/01/2024
