Point of Law: Allegations of malafides are often made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is working as Senior Branch Manager (Class-1 Officer) in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, City Branch - 5, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram - the 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation"). He was appointed in the above Branch as per Ext.P-1 order dated 14.5.2019.

2. According to the petitioner, the transfer of Class-1 Officers of the Corporation is governed by Ext.P-2 Transfer and Mobility Policy. Ext.P-3 is the administrative instructions issued in this behalf through the Central Office Circular. By clause 5 (d) of Ext.P-2 policy, the normal period of posting for an officer in the cadre of ADM is three years in one position and six years in one station. The petitioner has hardly completed one year in the present position and four years in the present station. As per clause 6 (c) of Ext.P-2, the maximum tenure in one station is not applicable when there is no incoming transfer.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his daughter is suffering from epilepsy and had undergone brain surgery at Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences, as evidenced by Ext.P-4. As per clause 12 (b) of Ext.P-2, the transfer of an employee must be considered favourably, if the employee, spouse, or dependent child is suffering from any disease covered under high-cost treatment. The petitioner is suffering from Disc Desiccation and Spondylotic changes of the Spinal Cord. He has undergone Ayurvedic treatment. The petitioner is also under treatment for high blood pressure, obstructive sleep apnoea, and related cardiological ailments. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P-9 order of transfer, transferring him from the present station to Sivakasi branch of the Corporation. The transfer is arbitrary and vitiated by mala fides because of the personal animosity of the respondents 2 and 3 towards the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has also contended that the Government of India decided to lockdown the Country and instructed to shut down all offices. Instead of closing the offices, as per the instruction of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent kept the offices open. The petitioner, in his capacity as the General Secretary of an Association, questioned the decision. The said act was the starting point for the animosity. On a non-resident Indian visiting the office, the petitioner took the decision to close down the office from 24.3.2020 onwards, which was communicated to the respondents 2 and 3. Although the decision was made as per the instructions in Ext.P-10 circular, the decision infuriated the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent targeted the petitioner by calling for an explanation and initiated disciplinary proceeding. The second respondent has colluded with the 3rd respondent to give a complaint on some WhatsApp communication allegedly sent by the petitioner in the WhatsApp group. The petitioner had given a prompt reply. The matter was closed with a warning letter. The 2nd respondent in a video conference meeting of SDMs of the Southern Zone of the Corporation held in April, 2020, openly stated that he would take the petitioner to task, as he was the only person who dared to question the Senior Divisional Manager and Zonal Manager, on the violation of covid protocol and lock-down procedures.

5. The petitioner has further contended that there are vacancies in the Trivandrum city in the cadre of Senior Branch Managers, and the transfer of the petitioner is done disregarding the stipulations in Exts.P-2 and P-3. Ext.P-9 order of transfer was sent in the WhatsApp group at 11.30 p.m on 29.6.2020. The petitioner was on casual leave for two days. The incumbent appointed to the post of the petitioner has taken charge on 30.6.2020, after informing the petitioner over the phone that she is joining as per the instructions from the higher officials. Two posts of Senior Branch Manager are vacant in Trivandrum City. The action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust. Hence Ex