Manojkumar P. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV THURSDAY,THE30[TH]DAYOFNOVEMBER2023/9THAGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 37598 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` MANOJKUMARP.L. AGED52YEARS DRIVER,KSRTCCHADAYAMANGALAM,RESIDINGAT - CHARUVILAVEEDU,VALIYODU,KOTTARAKKARA,PIN691520. BYADVP.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THEKERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION (KSRTC)REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGING DIRECTOR,TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, - PIN695023. 2THEJOINTMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KSRTC,TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, - PIN695023. 3THEASSISTANTTRANSPORTOFFICER, - KSRTCCHADAYAMANGALAMDEPOT,CHADAYAMANGALAMKOLLAM - DISTRICT,PIN691534. ``` ``` SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON30.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P(C) No. 37598 of 2023 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner states that he is presently working as Driver Grade-I of the Chadayamangalam Depot of the KSRTC. He has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P-3 Transfer Order, by which he has been transferred from the Chadayamangalam Depot to the Parassala Depot. The petitioner challenges the transfer order issued mid-academic year, arguing that it would cause injustice. He further alleges that the transfer order is motivated by malicious intent and should be set aside. Being aggrieved by the same, Ext.P-2 representation has been preferred before the Chairman & Managing Director. It is on these assertions that this Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P-3 order and for issuance of appropriate directions. 2. A counter affidavit is being filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the petitioner has been stationed in the Chadayamangalam Depot since 2010. It is stated that he has not been affected by any order of General Transfer to date and has completed more than 13 years in the present place. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there are almost 18,000 employees and it is on account of administrative W.P(C) No. 37598 of 2023 3 exigencies and to streamline the operations that a general transfer order has been issued, which affects almost 4000 personnel. According to the learned counsel, the majority of Conductors who are working in the KSRTC are from the northern part of Kerala, and the majority of drivers are from the southern part. It is submitted that for administrative exigencies and to accede to the long pending request of various employees who are working out of their home unit, that the general 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. 5. In **Nixy** (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to encapsulate the law relating to the 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, and it reads as under:- > 1 [1988 (2) KLT 258] > 2 [2023 (3) KLT 893] W.P(C) No. 37598 of 2023 4 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 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 W.P(C) No. 37598 of 2023 5 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= 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. 6. This Court has held that the 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 mandatory statutory violations or mala fides. Transfer can be effected on W.P(C) No. 37598 of 2023 6 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 ground 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. Furthermore, in **Babu** (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that guidelines for transfer are not statutory. They are meant for guidance in the matter of transfer and are not exhaustive either. In administration, a variety of situations 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. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent be directed to consider Ext.P2 W.P(C) No. 37598 of 2023 7 representation submitted by the petitioner and take a decision. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced, I am not inclined to stay the order of transfer. However, the request of the petitioner to consider his representation can be granted. In that view of the matter, while disposing the writ petition, I direct and issue the following directions:- i. There will be direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 and take a decision as per procedure and in accordance with law. ii. Decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. iii. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent to ensure compliance. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** MMG/30/11/2023 W.P(C) No. 37598 of 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37598/2023`** ``` PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS ExhibitP1THETRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED 03.08.2023INWP(C).23807OF2023OFTHIS COURT. ExhibitP2THETRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONDATED 14.8.2023. ExhibitP3THETRUEEXTRACTOFTHETRANSFERORDERNO. 700/CMD(SPC)/2023/RTCDATED04.11.2023. ```