Kerala High Court
Jaimon Joseph vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:77197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 24TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37736 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JAIMON JOSEPH
AGED 44 YEARS
(PEN G 41521), S/O. P.M. JOSEPH, DRIVER,
K.S.R.T.C. PONKUNNAM DEPOT, KOTTAYAM
RESIDING AT PUTHIYAMATTATHIL, PALAKKATTUMALA P.O.,
MARANGATTUPILLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686635
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SHRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
SHRI.BHARATH MOHAN
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695024
2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024
3 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER (ADMINISTRATION)
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
2025:KER:77197
W.P.(C) No.37736/2025
:2:
K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024
4 THE UNIT OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
K.S.R.T.C., PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686506
BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:77197
W.P.(C) No.37736/2025
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.37736 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who is a Driver under the
KSRTC, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 memo under which he has
been transferred from Ponkunnam Unit to Puthukkad O/C.
2. The petitioner states that on 01.10.2025, he
was driving a Fast Passenger KSRTC Bus from Ponkunnam
to Thiruvananthapuram. The distance is more than 210 Km.
In the Driver's cabin in the Bus, the petitioner was carrying
two bottles of drinking water, due to hot atmosphere. The
petitioner was also carrying in his lunch box from home.
2025:KER:77197
3. When the Bus passed Ayoor in the noon, the
Transport Minister's car crossed the KSRTC Bus. The
Minister came back and obstructed the Bus at the centre of
the public road. The Minister was furious as he found two
bottles of water kept in front of the driver seat near the front
glass. The Minister created unpleasant scene and left the
place.
4. On 04.10.12025, the 3rd respondent-
Executive Officer issued Ext.P1 memorandum transferring the
petitioner from Ponkunnam to Thrissur. Soon thereafter, he
was informed that the order is kept in abeyance and the
petitioner shall report for duty. However, on 07.10.2025, the
4th respondent-Unit Officer issued an order relieving the
petitioner from Ponkunnam to join at Thrissur. The transfer
was stated to be for administrative reasons.
5. The petitioner states that there is no
administrative reason whatsoever to transfer the petitioner.
The transfer is of a punitive nature and is as a consequence
2025:KER:77197
of the incident happened on 01.10.2025. The petitioner is
serving the KSRTC since 2016. So far, there is not even a
single instance of misconduct from the part of the petitioner.
Carrying water bottle while undertaking a drive of 210 Km.
cannot be described as a misconduct.
6. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Somesh Thivari v.
Union of India and others [(2009) 2 SCC 592] and argued
that Ext.P1 memorandum would attract the principle of malice
in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing
an order of transfer. The counsel further relied on the
judgment of this Court in Gopinathan M. and another v.
State of Kerala and others [2014 (4) KLT 285] and argued
that a transfer order passed on materials which were non-
existent would amount to colourable exercise of power. The
counsel also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court
in Director, Telecommunications (South),
Thiruvananthapuram v. Sukumaran Thampi [1984 KLT
2025:KER:77197
476] and argued that where the transfer order is silent and the
counter affidavit does not choose to answer, then the Court
can adopt the course of quashing the order of transfer.
7. Respondents 1 to 4 resisted the writ petition.
The respondents submitted that transfer is an incident of
service as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India
and another v. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit [(2020) 3
SCC 404]. Orders of transfer made in exercise of
administrative discretion should not ordinarily be interfered,
contended the respondents relying on the judgment of this
Court in Babu v. State of Kerala [1988 (2) KLT 258].
8. The respondents submitted that Clause 11
of the Transfer Guidelines attached to the Pay Revision
Agreement 2012 provides for the transfer of employees in
connection with disciplinary proceedings on administrative
grounds. This Court in Nixy James v. KSRTC [2023 (3) KLT
893] has held that when order of transfer is not bad for
statutory violations or malafides, court shall not interfere with
2025:KER:77197
the transfer orders.
9. The petitioner was transferred in accordance
with the Transfer Guidelines and the transfer is on
administrative grounds due to disciplinary issues. The
KSRTC has issued Ext.R1(B) memorandum in order to
maintain cleanliness in buses. Earnest steps have been
taken by the KSRTC to keep the vehicles clean. Employees
are bound to give effect to the Guidelines issued by the
KSRTC in this regard. Exts.P1 and P2 are not liable to be
interfered with on any of the grounds urged by the petitioner,
contended the respondents.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents.
11. The petitioner would state that on
01.10.2025 while he had undertaken the duty to ply a Fast
Passenger KSRTC Bus from Ponkunnam to
Thiruvananthapuram, the Transport Minister forcibly
2025:KER:77197
obstructed the Bus as he has annoyed by two bottles of
drinking water placed in front of the Driver's seat of the
KSRTC Bus. The petitioner would allege that Exts.P1 and P2
transfer/relieving orders is as a result of the said incident.
The petitioner has not been issued with any memo or charges
in respect of any misconduct. The transfer is punitive in
nature.
12. The respondents would submit that the
transfer is due to the failure of the petitioner to maintain
cleanliness of Bus. At the same time, the respondents would
assert that the transfer is on administrative grounds.
13. In the ordinary course, an employee cannot
be transferred on the ground of any allegation of misconduct,
unless the disciplinary rules relating to the employee provide
for transfer as a mode of punishment. Transfers are ordinarily
made on the grounds of administrative convenience/exigency
or on larger public interest.
2025:KER:77197
14. In the petitioner's case, in Ext.P1
memorandum, it has been stated that the petitioner is being
transferred on the grounds of administrative convenience.
The so-called administrative convenience is not discernible
either from Ext.P1 memorandum or from the counter affidavit
filed by respondents 1 to 4. An employee can be transferred
from one place to another on administrative grounds.
15. For instance, if an employee's service is
required in the transferred station, such transfer will be
justified even though made otherwise than during the general
transfer. If disciplinary proceeding is initiated against an
employee and the continuance of the employee in station can
affect the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, in such
circumstances also, transfer will be justified. Even in the
absence of any such situation, transfer of an employee from
one place to another will be justified if it is in the interest of the
institution or in larger public interest.
2025:KER:77197
16. In the present case, however, no such
reasons are palpable. In Ext.P1, the respondents have taken
a stand that the transfer is on administrative grounds.
However, in the counter affidavit, the respondents are
justifying the transfer stating that the transfer of the petitioner
is in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines attached to the
Pay Revision Agreement 2012.
17. Clause 11 of the Transfer Guidelines
attached to Appendix IV to the Pay Revision Agreement 2012
provides for the transfer of KSRTC employees in connection
with disciplinary proceedings on administrative grounds.
Clause 11 reads as follows:
11. Transfer on administrative grounds due to
disciplinary issues-
The reason for transfer on administrative
grounds due to disciplinary issues will be stated in
the order. The order of transfer will be
reconsidered only after the completion of a
minimum period of six months of regular duty.
18. Ext.P1 order does not disclose the reason
for transfer on administrative grounds. Ext.P1 does not speak
2025:KER:77197
of any disciplinary issues. The respondents have not
advanced any circumstances justifying the transfer of the
petitioner from Ponkunnam to Puthukkad O/C. In the
absence of any justifiable reason, the transfer of the petitioner
in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings would be punitive
in nature. Viewed in that angle, Ext.P1 memorandum suffers
from malice in law. Ext.P1 therefore can only be treated as a
colourable exercise of power. The writ petition is therefore
only to be allowed.
19. Exts.P1 and P2 are therefore set aside. The
respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue
to work in Ponkunnam Unit. This will be without prejudice to
the right of the respondents to initiate disciplinary action
against the petitioner, if warranted.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/16.10.2025
2025:KER:77197
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37736/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. S001-
AVA03/1156/2025/ADM/KSRTC-HQ DATED 4-
10-2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
AS DIRECTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
(ALONG WITH TYPED COPY)
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS NO.
PL1/3237/2025/PNKM DATED 7-10-2025
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1 (A) true copy of the circular issued by
the corporation dated 25/06/2024
Exhibit R1 (C) true copy of the memorandum dated
02/05/2024 issued by the Chairman and
Managing Director of the KSRTC
Exhibit R1 (B) true copy of the memorandum dated
19/06/2025
