K. Krishnakumar v. The Chairman & Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and The District Officer, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 43847 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` K.KRISHNAKUMAR AGED46YEARS S/OKARUPPASWAMI,AANDITHARAHOUSE,KIZHAKKUMURI - POST,NENMARA,PALAKKAD,PIN678508 ``` ``` BYADVRENUBRAJ. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` ``` 1THECHAIRMAN&MANAGINGDIRECTOR KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORT - BHAVAN,FORTP.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695034 2THEDISTRICTOFFICER KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,O/OTHE - DISTRICTOFFICER,PALAKKAD,PIN678001 ``` ``` SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON22.12.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P(C) No.43847 of 2023 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that he is presently employed in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in the Chittur Unit. He has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P-1 Transfer Order, by which he has been transferred from the Chittur unit to the Sulthan Bathery unit. The petitioner challenges the transfer order issued, arguing that his wife is a cancer patient and his displacement at this stage is unwarranted. He further alleges that the transfer order is motivated by malicious intent as the same is passed without any reason and is liable to be set aside. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following directions:- i. issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or orders calling for the records leading to Ext P1 and quash the same’ ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or orders commanding the respondents not to transfer the petitioner based on Ext P1 till such time the guidelines/special rules for transfer are formulated for the respondent. 2. Miss Renu B Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order of transfer is vitiated and is liable to be interfered with. It is submitted that the petitioner was transferred to the present unit W.P(C) No.43847 of 2023 3 less than two years back and that being the case, there is no justification for the order of transfer. She would also submit that the wife of the petitioner is seriously ill and is suffering from cancer, and any displacement of the petitioner from the present unit will work out gross injustice. 3. Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that it is on account of administrative exigencies, and to streamline the operations, the impugned transfer order was issued. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in **Babu V State of Kerala[1]** , 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 Corporation[2]** to substantiate his contention. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 5. It is by now settled that 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 > 1 [1988 (2) KLT 258] > 2 [2023 (3) KLT 893] W.P(C) No.43847 of 2023 4 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., is a 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 transfer is not sufficient to interfere with the orders of transfer. A transfer can always be done in the public interest. 6. In **State of M.P. and Another v. S. S. Kourav and Ors.[3]** , the Apex Court held that the Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. It is for the administration to take appropriate decisions, and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or extraneous considerations without any factual background foundation. 7. In **Babu v. State of Kerala[4]** , a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to observe as under while considering a challenge against an order of transfer: > 3 [1995 SCC (L&S) 666] > 4 [1988(2) KLT 258] W.P(C) No.43847 of 2023 5 1……………. Orders of transfer made in exercise of administrative discretion should not ordinarily be interfered with under Art.226 of the Constitution. Guidelines for transfer are not statutory. They are meant for guidance in the matter of transfer. They are not exhaustive. In administration variety of situation not contemplated by the guidelines may arise which have to be taken into account. Merely because a guideline has been violated in the matter of transfer, that would not by itself be a sufficient ground for interference. ## 8. In **Nixy James v. Kerala State Road Transport** **Corporation[5]** , a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to encapsulate the law relating to the transfer of employee by referring to the earlier precedents. It would be appropriate to extract paragraphs 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 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 > 5 [2023 (3) KLT 893] W.P(C) No.43847 of 2023 6 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 ), Rajan v. Director General of Police (1999 (2) KLT 673), Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659), Union of India v. S.L.Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574), Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Janardhan Debanath & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 245), Divyamol R.S. v. Director General Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi & Ors. (2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1093). 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.” 9. In the light of the law laid down in the above precedents, the order of transfer does not warrant any interference. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has raised a contention that his wife is seriously ill. However, no records have been placed before this Court to substantiate the said fact. W.P(C) No.43847 of 2023 7 10. Smt Renu, the learned counsel, submitted that she would place the relevant medical records before the 1st respondent and requested that directions be issued to the said respondent to consider the grievance expeditiously. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions:- - a) The prayer to quash Exhibit P1 transfer order is rejected. - b) if so advised, the petitioner may prefer a representation highlighting his grievances before the 1st respondent. if any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered, and orders shall be passed expeditiously in any event within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the request. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` Ps ``` W.P(C) No.43847 of 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43847/2023`** ``` PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS: ``` ``` ExhibitP1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHEPROCEEDINGS NO.P4-1824/2023/PLKDDATED23.11.2023 ```