Administrative transfers pending disciplinary procedures do not constitute punitive measures if rationalized to uphold organizational functionality.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. The petitioner, who is employed as Inspector in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and working at the Vaikom Unit, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P8 and to declare that the transfer given to him from Vaikom Depot of KSRTC to the Kattappana Depot is illegal, malice in law and issued by way of punishment.

2. The petitioner states that while discharging his duties at Vaikom Depot, he submitted Ext.P1 complaint dated 24.02.2025 against one T.Haseena, who is a Conductor at Vaikom Depot. The said T.Haseena was regularly posting defamatory messages in the WhatsApp group against the petitioner alleging that he has been behaving inappropriately towards women employees. Ext.P1 complaint against Haseena was addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director. However, no action was taken on the petitioner's complaint. Ext.P3 information obtained by the petitioner indicated that proceedings are being initiated against the said T.Haseena.

3. The petitioner submits that as a counterblast to Ext.P1 complaint filed by the petitioner, the said T.Haseena filed Ext.P4 complaint dated 26.04.2025 before the 2^nd respondent- Chairman and Managing Director. T.Haseena alleged that the petitioner is behaving in a bad manner towards her and the petitioner has refused to give leave to the complainant. A preliminary enquiry was ordered in respect of Ext.P4 complaint. The petitioner was summoned and was directed to give explanation to Ext.P4 complaint. The petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to provide him the copy of the complaint and the statement of T.Haseena so that he can give a proper reply. The petitioner was not given a copy of complaint nor the statement given by the complainant.

4. Later, the petitioner was summoned to an Adalat to consider the complaint of the woman Conductor. The petitioner was informed that if he doesn't go to the Court challenging the said proceedings, the issue will be given a quietus by issuing a warning memo. While so, the Administrative Officer of KSRTC has issued Ext.P8 memorandum transferring the petitioner from Vaikom Depot to Kattappana Depot on administrative grounds. The petitioner submits that Ext.P8 is illegal and has been issued as punishment.

5. Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of this Court in Dinamony v. Dt. Superintendent of Police, Kollam, 1994 (1) KLT 326, argued that if the transfer is intended to punish the petitioner, it may be said that the transfer has been made not in the interest of administration but for the purpose of punishing him, in which case, the transfer order would be malafide.

6. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592 to contend that the order would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies, but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in view of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.

7. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Ext.P8 memorandum though states that the transfer is on administrative grounds, refers to a proceeding under No.S001- VL01/52/2025/ADM-KSTRC-HQ. The said proceedings dated 11.06.2025 relate to the contemplated disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is being transferred by way of