[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sivakumar S vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2026:KER:11913
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4110 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SIVAKUMAR S.
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. K.S. SUNDARESAN NAIR,
SELECTION GRADE ASSISTANT, K.S.R.T.C.,
CHIEF OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT SARASA VILASOM BUNGALOW,
VELLANGAL, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695125
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 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
TRANSPORT (A) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
2026:KER:11913
W.P.(C) No.4110/2026
:2:
3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
4 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (ADMINISTRATION)
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV.
SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.02.2026, THE COURT ON 12.02.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:11913
W.P.(C) No.4110/2026
:3:
CR
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.4110 of 2026
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who is a Selection Grade
Assistant working at the Chief Office of KSRTC, has filed this
writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P2 memorandum dated
30.01.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent.
2. The petitioner states that he is a regularly
recruited employee of the KSRTC, who is in service since
22.04.2010. The petitioner is the District Secretary of the
Kerala State Transport Workers Union (INTUC),
2026:KER:11913
Thiruvananthapuram North. The workers Union is publishing a
periodical which has circulation among the employees of
KSRTC.
3. The petitioner published an article regarding
the financial position of the KSRTC and the expected
prospects of KSRTC after a new Government assumes power.
When the petitioner's article was published in the journal, the
3rd respondent transferred the petitioner from
Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod as per Ext.P2 order dated
30.01.2026. It is a punishment transfer, contends the
petitioner.
4. On the same day, Ext.P3 Memorandum of
Charges was issued relieving the petitioner from the office.
The petitioner states that the article published by the petitioner
does not contain any defamatory statement or allegations
against the Government or the Management. The only
depiction is regarding the present stage of the KSRTC and the
future of the KSRTC, if a new Government assumes office.
2026:KER:11913
Transferring the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to
Kasaragod is highly arbitrary.
5. The petitioner cannot be transferred for
publication of an article in a house journal. The right of
freedom and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the
Constitution of India cannot be curtailed as long as the same is
not affecting the existence of the establishment. Exts.P2 and
P3 are therefore liable to be quashed.
6. Respondents 2 to 4 resisted the writ petition.
The respondents stated that the petitioner published statement
contrary to facts with deliberate intention of spreading
misleading information about the Corporation and thereby
creating unrest and polarisation among the KSRTC employees.
7. The action of the petitioner amounts to grave
misconduct and has attracted Section 186 of the IPC,
obstructing the public servants of the Corporation to discharge
their duty. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from
any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
2026:KER:11913
writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, contend the
respondents.
8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.
K.P. Satheesan assisted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner Sri. Bharath Mohan and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the KSRTC Sri. Deepu Thankan.
9. Ext.P1 is a house journal of the Kerala State
Transport Workers Union affiliated to INTUC. In the January,
2026 issue, the petitioner published an article, which is
produced as Ext.P1. In the article, the petitioner has stated
that the KSRTC is in a financial distress and has debts. The
employees are facing difficulties, resulting in strikes. Due to
shortage of spare parts, buses are getting damaged in Depots,
affecting rural bus services. There is allegation that
experiments like K-SWIFT has helped only to divide the
KSRTC.
10. The published article goes on to state that if
UDF comes to power in the State, there will be a Management
2026:KER:11913
Plan and a pro-labour approach. Through packages, the
salary and pension of the employees can be ensured. More
buses will be introduced and the Central Government funds will
be used to propagate electric buses and CNG buses. UDF will
be giving priority to professional management devoid of
politics. They will introduce an approach treating the KSRTC
as a service rather than profit making business.
11. The respondents have considered the above
publication of the article as a misconduct and transferred the
petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod in
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The respondents
relied on a Circular dated 03.11.2021 which prohibits
publication of defamatory articles through new generation
media. The respondents stated that publication of the article is
a misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The provisions of
KCS CCA Rules will apply.
12. In the judgment in Anil Kumar A.P. v.
Mahatma Gandhi University and others [2018 (4) KLT 649],
2026:KER:11913
this Court has held that servitude is an outlook of an individual
and not a governing norm in a public Institution. Discipline is a
norm. Discipline and servitude are to be distinguished. If an
employee speaks out in the social media in a general
perspective which is not inconsistent with the collective interest
of the Institution, that is part of his right of free speech. No
authority should expect one to be silent. Survival of public
Institution depends upon how it accounts for democratic
values. Free expression is the corner stone of democratic
value. Every functionary of public power therefore must
command liberty to their constituents.
13. However, I do not intend to pronounce on the
sustainability of a disciplinary proceedings for publication of an
article by an employee of the KSRTC in an internal house
journal. I do not also propose to adjudicate on whether there is
any prohibition for the KSRTC employees in publishing articles
in journals, as the petitioner will be getting opportunity to
advance arguments regarding sustainability of the disciplinary
2026:KER:11913
proceedings. Nevertheless, I find that the petitioner stands
transferred from Thiruvananthapuram, the southern end of
Kerala to Kasaragod, the northern end of Kerala, in
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.
14. An employee can be transferred in
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Transfers in such
cases are made in order to facilitate pure and impartial enquiry.
It is so ordered to avoid the delinquent employee influencing
the witnesses and manipulating the records in order to escape
from punishment. It is in such eventualities alone that a
transfer order can be passed for the sole reason that the
disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. Without there
having any such possibilities, if an employee is transferred, that
can be treated as punitive, even if the transfer order does not
attach stigma.
15. In the present case, the disciplinary action is
contemplated as the petitioner has published an article in a
house journal, an extract of which is produced as Ext.P1. The
2026:KER:11913
petitioner has not denied publication of the article by him.
Therefore, in a disciplinary proceedings, the question arising
will be relating to the legality or justifiability of the petitioner
publishing the article. In the facts of the case, there is not even
a remote chance to conclude that the petitioner will be able to
influence witnesses or manipulate records. In the
circumstances, I am of the firm view that transferring the
petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod is punitive.
The transfer can only be treated as a high handed arbitrary
action on the part of the respondents.
The writ petition is therefore allowed. Exts.P2
and P3 are set aside. It is made clear that the respondents will
be free to proceed against the petitioner in departmental
proceedings, if the respondents deem it necessary.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/09.02.2026
2026:KER:11913
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 4110 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
ARTICLE WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER IN
THE MONTHLY MAGAZINE CALLED
‘TRANSPORT VEEKSHANAM' DURING
JANUARY 2026
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS NO. S001-
AVA07/36/2026/ADM-KSRTC-HQ DATED 30-01-
Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS MEMORANDUM NO.
S001-A&V A1/18/2026/ADM-KSRTC-HQ DATED
30-01-2026
Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9-9-
2024 IN W.P.(C)NO. 15998/2024
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2-A true copy of the Transfer Guidelines -
Schedule IV of the Long-Term
Settlement, 2021 dated nil
Exhibit R2-B true copy of the series of photograhs
series of strike being conducted by the
petitioner and the concerned union
members
