M. Svinod v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Limited & Ors.

``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV MONDAY,THE25[TH]DAYOFSEPTEMBER2023/3RDASWINA,1945 WP(C)NO.27655OF2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` M.SVINOD AGED47YEARS,S/OSASIM.K, MUKKANELLIYELHOUSE,EDANADUP.O, – KOTTAYAMDISTRICT,PIN686574 BYADVS. BABYTHOMAS K.ANILJOSEPH MARIAMMAJOSEPH GEORGET.J INDRAJITHSKAIMAL ALICIAJOSE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONLIMITED. REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT, - PIN695023 2THEMANAGINGDIRECTOR(KSRTC) KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONLIMITED, TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT, - PIN695023 3THEEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATION), KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONLIMITED, TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT, - PIN695023 4THEDISTRICTOFFICER OFFICEOFTHEDISTRICTOFFICER, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONLIMITED, – KOTTAYAMDISTRICT,PIN686001 BYADVSRI.DEEPUTHANKAN THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON25.09.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 27655 of 2023 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that he is working as a Driver-cum-Conductor in the service of the KSRTC. He has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P1 order, by which he was transferred from Pala to Kasargod by relieving him on 7.8.2023. 2. When this matter had come up for consideration on 24.8.2023, this Court had directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for accommodation in any nearby stations. 3. A statement has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC wherein it is stated that in consideration of the representation, on 24.8.2023, the Corporation issued a memorandum modifying the petitioner’s transfer from Kasargod unit to Kattappana unit on administrative grounds. A copy of the memorandum is also placed on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the transfer that has been effected is vitiated by mala fides. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is pursuant to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 27655 of 2023 3 herein that he has been transferred. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in **Babu V State of Kerala** 1988 (2) KLT 258, and it is argued that the orders of transfer made in the exercise of administrative discretion may not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution **.** Reliance is also placed on **Nixy James v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [2023 (3) KLT 893],** 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. 6. I have considered the submissions. 7. In **Nixy** (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to encapsulate the law relating to 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 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 W.P.(C) No. 27655 of 2023 4 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 W.P.(C) No. 27655 of 2023 5 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), 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. 8. In view of the observations and the law laid down in Nixy (supra), I find no reason to interfere in the instant case. Transfer is an incidence of W.P.(C) No. 27655 of 2023 6 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 on the 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. 9. I find that substantive relief has been granted to the petitioner as Pala is just 70 Km from Kattappana. The petitioner shall join at the Kattappana Station in terms of the memorandum. If the petitioner has any W.P.(C) No. 27655 of 2023 7 grievance, it would be open to the petitioner to file appropriate representation stating his grievances, which shall be considered in accordance with the law. This writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** NS/25/9/2023 W.P.(C) No. 27655 of 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27655/2023`** ``` PETITIONEREXHIBITS: ``` ``` ExhibitP1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED07.08.2023 BEARINGEG7764/23/D.O.KTM(CHRY)ISSUEDBY THE4THRESPONDENT. ``` ``` ExhibitP2 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED21.12.2022 PASSEDBYTHISHON'BLECOURTINW.P(C) NO.37736/2022. ``` ``` RESPONDENTANNEXURES: ``` ``` ANNEXURER-1(A) ``` ``` ATRUECOPYOFTHEMEMORANDUMDATED 24/08/2023,ISSUEDBYTHEEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATION). ```