T.P.Venu and Asha M.U v Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and The Executive Director (Administration), KSRTC

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/17TH MAGHA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 2724 of 2014 (M)** **------------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS:** **---------------------** **1. T.P.VENU, S/O.T.C.PARAMEWARAN, SUPERINTENDENT KSRTC, THATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, AIMS.P.O, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM.** **2. ASHA.M.U,** **W/O.CHANDRABABU, JUNIOR ASSISTANT KSRTC, THAZHATHILANGANAL HOUSE, MAPPILASSERY ROAD, VYTTILA.P.O, ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR** **RESPONDENTS:** - **------------------------** **1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R1, R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **DG** **WP(C).No. 2724 of 2014 (M)** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.1/00483/14 DATED 15.01.2014. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER DATED 16.01.2014. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 21.01.2014. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER DATED 23.01.2014. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 23.01.2014. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE NOTE FILE. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATAED 20.12.2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL ----------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------------W.P.(C) No. 2724 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of February , 2014 ## J U D G M E N T The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order by which they have been transferred from Ernakulam to Nilambur and Pathanapuram respectively. The reasons stated in Ext.P1 is that they were being transferred as part of disciplinary proceedings as well as administrative convenience. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had by their carelessness sanctioned the payment of salary for the month of May 2013 to some newly recruited drivers, twice. This was the result of preparation of supplementary bills by the petitioners. The first petitioner was working as the Superintendent and the second petitioner was working as Junior Assistant at the Ernakulam Depo. The petitioners deny the allegation levelled against them. The case is that, they had already prepared the salary bills and send them for payment according to the usual practice. Thereafter, the Administrative Officer had over telephone requested for preparation of duplicate salary bills, stating that the original salary bills were not to be found. The Accounts Officer on being directed W.P.(C) No. 2724 of 2014 2 to prepare duplicate bills, sought clarification from the first petitioner by a note dated 20.10.2013, seen in Ext.P6. The first petitioner thereupon by his endorsement directed the bills to be prepared. The Administrative Officer also by his endorsement directed compliance with the Chief Officer's direction. Thereupon, the duplicate bills were prepared, specifically mentioning that they were duplicates. While forwarding the bills, as per Ext.P7 covering letter, it was specifically requested that the duplicate bills were to be ignored if the original bills were found. Therefore, it is contended that, the petitioners had taken all necessary precautions while preparing and forwarding the duplicate bills. If at all any negligence was committed it could only be by the persons, who were responsible for sanctioning the payment on the duplicate bills. For the above reasons, it is contended that the petitioners are being penalised for no fault of theirs. 2. According to Adv.Sri.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar appears for the petitioner, in the factual background in which the bills were prepared there is absolutely no justification for transferring the petitioners. They are ready to co-operate with the enquiry that may necessary to be conducted. Sufficient safeguards to ensure that the enquiry is conducted in a proper and impartial manner should also W.P.(C) No. 2724 of 2014 3 be initiated by the respondents. At any rate, there is no justification for transfer of the petitioners to such distant places as Nilambur and Pathanapuram as done by Ext.P1. The petitioners also apprehend that the proceedings initiated against them would continue to drag on indefinitely causing hardships and prejudice to them. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in _**Abdul Khader v.**_ ## _**Regional Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Ernakulam**_ _**[1967 KLT 354]**_ to contend that, transfer by way of punishment is not permissible. Therefore, it is contended that Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside. The petitioners have not been relieved for the reason that they were permitted to continue at their present posting places by the interim order granted by this Court, which is still in force. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. Exts.R1(a) to R1(b) documents have also been produced. According to Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, who appears for the respondent, the petitioners are guilty of carelessness in the manner preparing the duplicate bills. They are persons, who ought have been aware of the fact that payment of salary had been made to the drivers concerned, on the basis of the original bills that were prepared by them. If sufficient care had been taken, the present situation, where double payment was made W.P.(C) No. 2724 of 2014 4 to the drivers could have been avoided. The incident by the wide publicity that it has received in the newspapers, has brought the first respondent to ill repute. Though originally, action was initiated on the basis of the newspaper reports, it is pointed out that a preliminary enquiry has been conducted. Ext.R1(d) report has found that the petitioners were prima facie liable to be proceeded against and that it was necessary for them to be transferred to some other places so as to remove them from scene. The counsel also places reliance on Ext.R1(c) report which relates to another incident of lack of diligence on the part of the first petitioner in the matter of making payment of pension. As per Ext.R1(c), it has been alleged that payments were made to pensioners, even after their death. However, since the amounts so paid in excess had been recovered, no action was taken. According to the counsel, the said incident was also in the mind of the authorities while initiating the impugned action. The counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23515 of 2013 dated 30.08.2013 rendered by learned single Judge of this Court sustaining a similar order of transfer made in identical circumstances. It is pointed out that as per judgment dated 19.12.2013 in W.A.No.1551 of 2013, the judgment of the learned W.P.(C) No. 2724 of 2014 5 Single Judge has been confirmed. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed refuting the allegations in the counter affidavit. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.R1(c) report does not fix responsibility for the alleged incident on the first petitioner. On the contrary it was found that the incident occurred due to the carelessness on the part of another employee. 5. Heard. The incident in the present case cannot be considered to be trivial. This is a case in which the allegation is that salary to a number of newly recruited drivers had been paid twice, without noticing the earlier payment. Such a grave incident causing loss to the first respondent Corporation especially in a situation of financial stringency has certainly to be taken seriously. 6. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong in the action ordering an enquiry. It is necessary to ensure that the disciplinary enquiry ordered is conducted expeditiously and completed as soon as possible so as to fix responsibility for incident on the persons who are guilty. The action of respondents in deciding to keep them away from the scene is certainly on justifiable reasons. However, as rightly pointed by the counsel for the petitioners, whether it was necessary to transfer them to such distant places as Nilambur and W.P.(C) No. 2724 of 2014 6 Pathanapuram, is doubtful. The petitioners have submitted representations against their transfers. The respondents shall consider the said representations and give them suitable postings at places that are not far away from their present places of posting. The counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners could be accommodated at Thrissur, Aleppey or Cherthala. A contention is taken by the counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner being the functionary of a Trade union is entitled to protection from transfer in terms of Ext.P9. However, Ext.R1(d), which is part of the very same settlement permits transfer as part of disciplinary proceedings. I am not satisfied, that the immunity that is contemplated by Ext.P9 applies to transfers by way of disciplinary proceedings. Such transfers are also permitted by Ext.R1(d). 7. In view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 23515/2013 as confirmed by the judgment in W.A. 1551/2013, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P1 notice at this stage. The disciplinary proceedings are in progress. Only the outcome of the said proceedings could decide, whether the petitioners are guilty or not. Ext.P1 only seeks to move them to another place on grounds of administrative convenience. Such transfers are permissible in law. There are no allegation of malafides against W.P.(C) No. 2724 of 2014 7 Ext.P1. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P1. 8. However, since the petitioners have been moved to distant places, the first respondent shall consider Exts. P2, P3, P4 and P5 representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously, granting the petitioners suitable postings at some place in Thrissur, Aluva or Cherthala. Needless to say the respondents would be at liberty to accommodate them at any other nearer places, if vacancies are available. The assurance of the counsel for the respondent that the disciplinary proceedings would be completed within an outer limit of four months from today is also recorded. Until suitable orders of posting are issued, the interim order granted in this case shall continue to be in force. Sd/ K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE jm/